THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1085 & 1086 of 2024 COMMON ORDER:

Since the parties to the matters are the same and they arise out of the same suit, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Civil Revision Petitions by way of a Common Order.

2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 30.04.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.160 and 161 of 2024 in Original Suit No.173 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, whereby the applications filed to re-open the suit to adduce further evidence on behalf of defendant No.2 for examination of surveyor and one third party and to summon them were allowed, the present Civil Revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. The facts of the case that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petitions are as follows:

i) The petitioner herein is plaintiff, respondent No.1 is defendant No.2 and respondent No.2 is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.173 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal.

ii) The petitioner herein/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.173 of

2018 for permanent injunction. After the completion of evidence on both sides and at the stage of arguments, defendant No.2 filed I.A.Nos.160 and 161 of 2024 under Order XVI Rules 5 & 7 and Section 151 CPC praying the Court to re-open the suit to adduce further evidence on his behalf and to summon Smt Gurram Estheramma and the surveyor of Nandyal Mandal to adduce evidence on his behalf.

iii) The said applications are opposed by the petitioner herein/plaintiff by filing counter denying the allegations and inter alia contending that the applications were filed only to protract the litigation. It is further contended that when the matter was adjourned for further submission of plaintiff’s arguments, defendant No.2, without showing any sufficient cause or bona fides, filed these applications intentionally. If the said applications are allowed, it allow defendant No.2 to travel beyond the scope of the suit. Moreover, the burden of proof to establish possession of the suit schedule lies on the plaintiff, which is the primary point of determination to be adjudicated in the suit.

iv) After hearing both sides, the Court below allowed the said applications, by way of common order, subject to payment of costs of Rs.500/- payable to the plaintiff on the ground that no prejudice would be sustained to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein/plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.

4. Heard Sri N.Sai Akash, learned counsel, representing Sri V.Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Ashok Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/defendant No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revisions and the counter affidavit filed before the Court below, submitted that the Court below failed to appreciate Order XVI Rules 5 and 7 in a right perspective. No valid reasons were stated for summoning the witnesses and the reasons mentioned are untenable and are insufficient. He further submitted that one the witnesses now sought to be summoned, Smt Gurram Estheramma died and the reasons mentioned for summoning the surveyor to prove the possession are unsustainable. He further contended that in a suit for injunction, it is for the plaintiff to prove that he was in possession of the property as on the date of filing of the suit, for which the defendant need not adduce any evidence, as the burden of proof always lies on the plaintiff. He further submitted that the applications were filed solely to protract the litigation, particularly at the stage of arguments. As such, the order impugned is erroneous, lack of cogent reasons and it is liable to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/defendant No.2, while reiterating the contents of the affidavits filed in support of the Interloc