IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.3771 of 2006, CRP No.3773 of 2006 & CRP No.3772 of 2006 CRP No.3771 of 2006: Between: Tirumalaraju Pushpavathi Devi … Petitioner And: Chunduru Lakshmikanta Rao … Respondent CRP No.3773 of 2006: Between: Tirumalaraju Pushpavathi Devi … Petitioner And: Chunduru Lakshmikanta Rao … Respondent CRP No.3772 of 2006: Between: Tirumalaraju Pushpavathi Devi … Petitioner And: Chunduru Lakshmikanta Rao … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.3771 of 2006, CRP No.3773 of 2006 & CRP No.3772 of 2006 COMMON ORDER: These three revision petitions are directed against the orders dated 21.07.2006 in IA No.1790 of 2006, IA No.1789 of 2006 and IA No.1791 of 2006, respectively, in OS No.404 of 2004 on the file of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein, the said three petitions filed by the petitioner herein, were dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her right of performing lawful and official duties as Principal of the institution. The suit is not filed against the institution, but against the individual-respondent, who according to the petitioner, is the Correspondent of the institution. The respondent/defendant filed written statement contesting the suit and disputing the claim of the plaintiff that she was the Principal of the institution. Necessary issues were settled based on the pleadings. The trial of the suit also commenced. The plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and her evidence was closed. Thereafter, the defendant adduced his evidence and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the plaintiff filed the present applications seeking to reopen the evidence, recall PW.1 and also to examine the listed witnesses by way of rebuttal evidence. 4. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not reserved any right to produce rebuttal evidence before the evidence of defendant’s side commenced. The plaintiff was aware of various pleas raised in the written statement, including denial of her claim that she was the Principal of the institution. Nothing prevented her to adduce such evidence, that she considered necessary before the evidence of the defendant is commenced. But when the matter is posted for arguments on conclusion of the defendant’s evidence, the plaintiff filed the present applications, obviously with an intention to fill up the lacunae, if any in her evidence and now she has furnished the list of 11 witnesses, whom she proposed to examine by way of rebuttal evidence. There is absolutely no explanation as to what prevented the plaintiff from examining them at the earliest stage before commencing the defendant’s side evidence. It is obvious that the present applications, as rightly observed by the trial Court, are intended only to drag on the proceedings. There are absolutely no merits in the three revision petitions. The discretion exercised by the trial Court in refusing to reopen the evidence and allowing the plaintiff to adduce additional evidence by way of rebuttal evidence, does not call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. 5. In the result, all the three revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.02.2011 bss