IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH (24TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2112 of 2011 Between: Durmutla Ganga Reddy & another … Petitioners And: Chandru Vijaya & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2112 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 15.04.2011 in IA No.73 of 2011 in OS No.58 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Order 14 Rule 5 CPC for framing additional issues, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property. The respondents/defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. The trial Court framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule land? 2. Whether the decree in O Sno.1190 of 1991 acts as ‘res judicate’ over the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of declaration of title as joint owners with equal shares in suit schedule land? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction as prayed for? 5. To what relief? 4. The trial of the suit has since been completed. It is stated that the matter has reached the stage of arguments. At that stage, the plaintiffs filed the present petition seeking framing of two additional issues which are as follows: 1. Whether the decree in OS No.1190 of 1991 on the file of JCJ, Sircilla is valid and binding on the plaintiffs? 2. Whether the signature on the written statements belongs to the father of the plaintiffs? 5. The respondents/defendants opposed the same by filing a counter. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by impugned order dismissed the said application. Hence the present revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs. 6. It is to be noted that the decree in OS No.1190 of 1991 was passed on 29.11.1991 i.e., about nearly 20 years back. According to the petitioners, the said decree was vitiated by fraud. They further contend that the signatures in the written statement filed in OS No.1190 of 1991 were not that of their father. The petitioners have not chosen to question the said decree for the past 20 years by filing any suit for cancellation of the decree. In the present suit also, the petitioners have not raised any such plea at the initial stages. During the course of trial, they filed petition to compare the signatures of their father by summoning the written statement filed in OS No.1190 of 1991 and the said petition was dismissed and the revision petition filed by the petitioners, was also dismissed by this Court. The petitioners are now making a request to frame additional issues in respect of the signatures of their father contained in the written statement filed in OS No.1190 of 1991, which suit has already culminated in to a decree in 1991 itself. The proposed second additional issue as to the validity and binding nature of the suit OS No.1190 of 1991 also does not arise in the present case. The present application filed at the stage when the matter stands posted for arguments is rightly dismissed by the trial Court, observing that it is filed to drag on the proceedings. The impugned order does not call for any interference. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 24.06.2011 bss