THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3935 AND 3936 OF 2011 Date: 14-11-2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3935 OF 2011 Between Boppana Venkata Narayana Rao …..Petitioner And Kethineni Chandra Kumari and four others …..Respondents CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3936 OF 2011 Between Boppana Venkata Narayana Rao …..Petitioner And Kethineni Chandra Kumari and four others …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3935 AND 3936 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: Since both the revision petitions are interrelated, they are heard and disposed of by this common order. Respondents 1 to 4 – plaintiffs filed suit O.S No. 22 of 2005 against respondent No.5 – defendant No.1 and the petitioner – defendant No.2 for partition of the suit schedule properties and for cancellation of sale deed, dated 24-05-2004. The petitioner filed a written statement claiming that he is a bona fide purchaser of item No.3 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule land from the respondent – defendant No.1 who is the father of plaintiffs 2 to 4 – minors and the husband of the 1st plaintiff. When witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents – plaintiffs, the petitioner has not chosen to cross examine them with regard to purchase of property and the sale which was affected by respondent No.5 – defendant No.1 in his favour for the joint family need etc., but filed a petition in I.A No. 30 of 2010 for reopening of his evidence, which was allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.200/- each to the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and on condition that he should be present in the Court for cross examination on his filing an affidavit in lieu of chief examination. The suit was posted on 18-08- 2010 for his cross examination and as he was not available for cross examination, the I.A was dismissed. The petitioner also filed I.A No. 304 of 2010 on 25-08-2010 to reopen his evidence and permit him to adduce his evidence in the suit. The said I.A was also dismissed holding that the petition is not maintainable as I.A No. 30 of 2010 which was filed for the very same relief was dismissed. The lower Court rightly held that even otherwise, the respondents herein have admitted the case of the petitioner in the suit. A copy of the title deed is also marked as Ex.A-10 in the suit and as such, no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner even if the petition is dismissed. On dismissal of the petition, the petitioner filed I.A No. 24 of 2011 on 07-02-2011 for setting aside the dismissal order, dated 18-08-2010 passed in I.A No. 30 of 2010 and the same was also dismissed holding that even otherwise the respondents herein are admitting the case of the petitioner who is defendant No.2 in the suit in respect of his purchasing the property and that a copy of the title deed dated 24-05-2004 was marked as Ex.A-10 in the suit and as such, no prejudice would be caused to his case in this suit even if the petition is dismissed. Questioning the dismissal of I.A N. 304 of 2010, C.R.P No. 3925 of 2010 is filed and questioning the dismissal of I.A NO. 24 of 2011, C.R.P No. 3936 of 2011 is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of his claim. Admittedly, when the witnesses on behalf of the plaintiffs were examined, they were not subjected to cross examination by the petitioner. Even respondent No.5 – defendant No.1 who is contesting the suit has not lead any evidence. Therefore, without leading any evidence, the petitioner in the event of partition of the suit schedule properties can plead that the property purchased by him may be allotted to respondent No.5 – defendant No.1. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernible in the order passed by the Court below. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 14-11-2011 ks