IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs. 1109 1110 & 1111 OF 2007 COMMON CAUSE TITLE IN THREE CRPs Between: Shaik Johan Peera & 3-Ors. … Petitioners V/s. Pothuri Shaik Abdulla & 4-Ors. … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioners : M/s. RKG Bhatia Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S. Satyanarayana Murthy THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA * * * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs. 1109, 1110 & 1111 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER : Heard the learned counsel. 2. CRP.No.1109of 2007 is filed against the order made in I.A.No. 616 of 2006 in OS.No.1124 of 2004 on the file of II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 3. CRP.No.1110 of 2007 is filed against the order made in I.A.No.617 of 2006 in OS.No. 1124 of 2004 on the file of II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 4. CRP.No0. 1111 of 2007 is filed against the order made in I.A.No. 618 of 2006 in OS.No. 1124 of 2004 on the file of II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 5. These applications were dismissed by the learned Judge on the ground that at the stage of arguments these applications have been thought of and these applications are frivolous and vexatious. While dismissing the reopening application filed under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, I.A.No.616 of 2006 in OS.No. 1124 of 2004, it was observed that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners and the stand of the counsel for the respondents is that these applications are vexatious also had been recorded and the learned Judge further observed that in the light of the facts and circumstances, it is not a fit matter where re- opening application to be ordered. The learned Judge in fact observed as hereunder: “After careful hearing of the contention of the respondents counsel and on perusal of the contents of the petition, I come to a conclusion that at the stage of arguments, re-open the trial for sending the partition list to the expert for ascertain the age of the ink of writing in the document clearly shows the intention of the petitioners is that to drag on the trial for some more years under the guise of expert opinion.” “As contended by the respondents counsel re-open of the trial at the stage of arguments for sending the documents to the expert to ascertain the age of ink writing is an invented version only to drag on the proceedings and trial for some more years, so, at the stage of arguments, reopen the trial to send the list of partition to the expert is not just and proper.” “In the result, the petition is dismissed, no costs”. 6. In the light of these reasons and also the opinion expressed by the learned Judge while dismissing the other applications, this court is satisfied that these applications are thought of only with a view to prolong the litigation. 7. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions shall stand dismissed. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE P. S. NARAYANA. 18-06-2010. I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs. 1110 & 1111 OF 2007 Circulation Entry No. 55 Date: 18-06-2010 Computer No. 43 Court Master: I s L