THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1675,1776 & 1779 of 2025 COMMON ORDER:

Since the parties to the matters are the same and they arise out of the same suit and common order, 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 13.11.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.481, 482 and 483 of 2024 in Original Suit No.324 of 2010 on the file of the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahndravaram, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to reopen the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, to recall P.W.2 for the purpose of marking documents filed along with the petition and to receive documents were dismissed, 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 petitioners herein are plaintiffs and respondent herein is defendant in O.S.No.324 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram. During the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff No.1 died and plaintiff No.2 was brought on record as legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.1. (Plaintiff No.2 shall be referred to as ‘the plaintiff’).

ii) The petitioners herein/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.324 of

2010 for declaration, recovery of past profits for the years 2007-08, 2008- 09 and 2009-10 and also for recovery of future profits from the date of suit till delivery of plaint schedule property along with interest at 12% p.a. on past profits from the date of suit till the date of realization. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.481, 482 and 483 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC, order XVIII Rule 17 and Order VII Rule 14 (3A) of CPC to reopen the evidence on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, to recall P.W.2 for the purpose of marking registered sale deeds dated 16.06.1959 vide document Nos.1372 & 1373 of 1959 and to receive the said documents on the ground that the said documents were obtained recently upon verification of records in connection with O.S.No.9 of 2000 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry and they are essential for better adjudication of the suit.

iii) The said applications were opposed by the respondent/defendant by filing counter inter alia contending that the petitions were filed for the purpose of marking the sale deed dated 16.06.1959 and another sale deed dated 16.06.1959, however both the documents are not relevant for the purpose of the present case, and the said petitions were filed only to cover up the laches on the part of the plaintiff in adducing the evidence of P.W.1. It is further contended that the subject matter of the suit in O.S.9 of 2000 is not connected with the present suit and that the petitioners have to prove the relevancy and admissibility of documents relating to another suit, even though the documents were already marked in another suit. Moreover, the petitions were filed at belated stage without explaining the delay and were filed only to drag on the proceedings.

iv) After hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed the said applications on the ground that the petitioner was in the habit of filing similar applications by producing documents in a piecemeal basis and that the petitioner did not state any reason as to why those documents were not filed at earlier point of time along with suit or at the time of filing of Interlocutory Applications on three occasions and there is no whisper as to how those documents are relevant to the case and further observed that the petitioner had not assigned any reason for the delay in filing the said documents. Aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.

4. Heard Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service