THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. No. 206 of 2008 O r d e r: This C.R.P. is directed against the order dated 17.01.2008 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Chevela, Ranga Reddy District, dismissing the application in I.A. No. 1152 of 2007 in O.S. No. 131 of 1997, filed by the petitioners praying to recall P.Ws. 1 and 3 for confronting the documents i.e. Exs. A20 to A23 and Ex. B22. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order under revision. The contention of the petitioners that the Court below having permitted the respondents-plaintiffs to confront and mark the documents Exs. A20 to A23 through D.W.1, ought to have permitted the petitioners-defendants to re-examine D.W.1 and also ought to have recalled P.Ws. 1 and 2 for confronting the said documents Exs. A20 and A23 and also Ex. B22, cannot be accepted. As can be seen from the order under revision, the Court below upon perusing the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 and 2 found that both of them were examined with regard to Ex. B22-certified copy of plaint, filed by one Mallaiah, and that they denied about having any knowledge of the same, and in fact, D.W.1, through whom Ex. B22 was marked in evidence, is said to have stated that neither the plaintiffs nor defendants are parties to the same. Since the suit was filed for injunction simplicitor and no declaratory or possessory rights having been claimed, and neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants being parties to Ex. B22, the Court below felt that no purpose would be served, even if the said document is confronted to P.Ws. 1 and 2, and accordingly, refused to recall P.Ws. 1 and 2 for cross-examination. Insofar as the contention of the petitioners that since Exs. A20 to A23 were marked through the evidence of D.W.1 by confrontation, the petitioners ought to have been provided an opportunity to re-examine, is concerned, as can be seen from the order under revision, D.W. 1 when confronted with the documents Exs. A20 to A23, is said to have admitted the possession of the plaintiffs over the land in question, and that being so, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that D.W.1 should be re-examined, with regard to Exs. A20 to A23. This apart, the petitioners earlier filed application in I.A. No. 1134 of 2000 to recall P.W.1 along with D.W.1 and the said application was allowed to the extent of recalling D.W.1, and there being no whisper with regard to recalling of P.W.1, the Court below felt that since the request of the petitioners to recall P.W.1 was rejected, they are not entitled to maintain the present application. Be that as it may, the suit is of the year 1997. The petitioners filed the present application at the fag end stage, in that they filed, when the suit was coming up for arguments, and as can be seen from the order under revision, it was posted for arguments on 22.01.2008, and while this Court, while ordering notice before admission on 28.01.2008, granted only stay of pronouncement of judgment and permitted all other proceedings to go on, and by virtue of operation of the order of this Court, by now the arguments must have been concluded, and if at this stage, any interference is made by this Court, with the orders under revision, it would amount to re-opening the already concluded evidence. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Dated: 24th December, 2010 KSR