HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3619 of 2008 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3923 of 2008 and CIVIL REVISION PETITIOIN No.4023 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These three civil revision petitions are filed as against the common order made in I.A.No.351 of 2008, I.A.No.352 of 2008 and I.A.No.353 of 2008 in O.S.No.93 of 1999 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. 2. The said applications were filed for reopening of the suit, recalling of P.W.1 for further cross-examination and reception of certain documents. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, having formulated the point for determination that whether the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for, at para 5, recorded reasons at para 6 and ultimately dismissed the applications. Hence, these civil revision petitions are filed. 3. All these civil revision petitions are being disposed of by a common order, since the applications aforesaid also had been disposed of by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal by a common order. 4. Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner in all these civil revision petitions would maintain that recalling of P.W.1 and placing of documents in evidence are absolutely necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case and the leaned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, had not exercised the discretion properly. 5. Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, however, would maintain that the revision petitioner has been successfully dragging on the litigation on some ground or the other. The learned counsel also had drawn the attention of this Court to the reasons recorded at para 6 and would maintain that in the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Judge, these are not fit matters to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Heard the counsel. 7. The suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of contract of sale. The averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the applications had been denied. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, at para 6, recorded reasons as hereunder. “The record indicates that while the petitioner herein had filed I.A.No.238/208 and I.A.No.239/2008 seeking reopening of the main suit and recalling D1 for further cross- examination, the said applications were dismissed through the order dt.9.6.2008. In the said order it was clearly observed by the Court that the plaintiff ought to have taken steps at the earliest opportunity to cross-examine D.W.1 on the question of whether he did actually put his signature in the account books of the fertilizer shop that was being run by the plaintiff and his father and that the inexplicable and prolonged silence on the part of the plaintiff could not be condoned, that too, when the matter stood posted for judgment at the end of the entire process of trial. The petitioner/plaintiff has filed the present petitions only to circumvent the bar imposed by the court in the said earlier applications. The acknowledged purpose of marking the said account books in evidence is only to send the same to the handwriting for analysis. But the signatures on these account books are not the admitted signatures of R1/D1 who vehemently denies the authenticity of the same. Therefore, allowing these petitions would not serve any useful purpose except for taking some more time of the Court. As such I do not hesitate to put on record once again that the prevaricating tactics of the petitioner/plaintiff would only cause further delay in the disposal of the main suit which has been identified for quick disposal. Hence, I do not see any reason to allow these petitions.” 8. In the light of the convincing reasons which had been recorded by the learned Judge and also inasmuch as the common order being discretionary order and since this Court is satisfied that the discretion is exercised properly by the learned Judge, this Court is thoroughly satisfied that these are not fit matters to be interfered with under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ________________ (P.S. NARAYANA, J) Date: September 15, 2009. BSB