THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 2697 of 2011 DATE: 09.09.2011 Between: K.Manjula, Hyderabad. …Petitioners And K.Jagan and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 2697 of 2011 O R D E R : Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.407 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. The suit is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein from interfering with the suit schedule property. While the evidence was in progress, the defendant filed I.A.No.1783 of 2010 to receive certain documents as additional evidence. Though the plaintiff opposed and filed a counter, the Court below by order dated 14.12.2010 allowed I.A.No.1783 of 2010. Contending that the said order was passed without considering the objections raised by the plaintiff and without hearing her counsel, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1813 of 2010 to recall the order dated 14.12.2010. The Court below allowed the said application in part making it clear that the marking of the documents in question should be subject to objection and subject to proof and relevancy. Thereafter on 04.05.2011 the plaintiff came up with a fresh application being I.A.No.518 of 2011 under Order 13 Rule 3 of C.P.C. to reject the documents marked as Exs.B.1, B.4 and B.6. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 08.06.2011 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, the objections raised by the plaintiff/revision petitioner were already considered and an order was passed in I.A.No.1813 of 2010 on 14.12.2010. Having allowed the said order to become final, it is not open to the petitioner to file an application to reject the documents which were already marked in evidence. It is also relevant to note that the said documents were marked subject to objection in addition to subject to proof and relevancy. The said order, in my considered opinion, did not suffer from any material irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, this shall not preclude the petitioner to challenge the order dated 14.12.2010 by availing the appropriate remedy as available under law. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 09.09.2010 KLP