COMMON ORDER:

All these civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff who is represented by her GPA holder, aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Judge, Family Court – cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool in three applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in O.S.No.120 of 2014. As such, I feel it appropriate to decide these revision petitions by way of a common order.

2. C.R.P.No.1378 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the order dated 10.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.103 of 2024 in O.S.No.120 of 2014 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereby the Court below dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‗CPC‘), to receive certain documents as evidence. Along with the said application, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.94 of 2024 (under Section 151 of CPC) and I.A.No.93 of 2024 (under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC) in O.S.No.120 of 2014, to reopen the evidence and to recall the petitioner/plaintiff which were also dismissed vide two separate docket orders dated 10.05.2024. Challenging the docket orders passed by the Court below in I.A.No.94 of 2024 and I.A.No.93 of 2024, the petitioner/plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.1967 of 2024 and C.R.P.No.1966 of 2024, respectively.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the revision will hereinafter be referred as plaintiff and defendants, as arrayed before the Trial Court in the suit.

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

(a) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule ABCD house site in Sy.No.91 of Kallur village having purchased from one G. Sharfuddin Khan on 28.07.2011 vide document No.6267/2011 and has been in possession of the same ever since. The plaintiff is the wife of G. Sharfuddin Khan, who is an engineer at Dubai and thus the petitioner resides in Dubai along with her husband and is being represented by her General Power of Attorney.

(b) Originally, the land to an extent of Acs.1.15 cents in Sy.No.91 of Kallur village belongs to one Nukala Subbarayudu who, in the year 1952, sold the same to Sampati Sanjeeva Reddy vide document No.182/1952, having enjoyed the same till 12.07.1966, Sampati Sanjeeva Reddy sold the same to one Smt. Hemalatha vide document No.1981/1966. The said Hemalatha, purchased another land in Sy.No.92/2 and 109/3 of Kallur village and collectively, she laid plots in the aforesaid lands and got it approved vide L.P.No.247/1981. Thereafter, the said Hemalatha sold plots of various extents in Sy.Nos.91, 92/2 and 109/3. Accordingly, the land admeasuring Acs.1.00 cents out of Acs.1.15 cents in Sy.No.91 was sold to one Smt. Lavanya on 22.01.1997 and having enjoyed the possession of the same, Smt. Lavanya, on 30.03.2002 sold the house site to an extent of Acs.0.35 cents in Sy.No.91 to one Katta Rama Chandraiah vide document No.2233/2002. Subsequently, the said property belonging to Katta Ram Chandraiah, shown as ABCD, was purchased by the husband of the plaintiff vide registered sale deed dated 08.04.2004 under document No.3710/2004. Thereafter, the husband of the plaintiff gifted the schedule property in her favour on 28.07.2011.

(c) While so, in the month of September, 2014, the agent of the plaintiff, on receipt of information that the defendants are trying to sell the subject ABCD house site as if it is their property, approached the defendants and submitted all the relevant documents to satisfy them. In spite of the same, as the defendants tried to trespass into the plaint schedule house site, the agent of the plaintiff questioned their right over the said property, upon which, the defendants stated that they purchased the land in Sy.No.91 of Kallur village from their vendor. Subsequently, when the agent of the plaintiff enquired in the regional Sub-Registrar‘s office, he came