THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.728 and 1055 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise out of the same suit and are between the same parties, hence they are disposed of through common order. The first respondent herein filed O.S.No.83 of 2002 in the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, against respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and the petitioner (defendant No.4) for recovery of a substantial amount. The trial of the suit is concluded and the arguments are advanced. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1315 of 2009 under Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to reopen the suit, in particular, the evidence of the defendants; and I.A.No.1316 of 2009 under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to permit him to carry out amendment in the deposition of D.W.1 who is said to be the son of the petitioner herein. Through separate orders dated 12.11.2009, the trial Court dismissed both the applications. Hence, these two revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has grossly misused the process of the Court and in particular, the remedy provided for revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By filing successive applications relevant or irrelevant in the suit and by filing almost equal number of revisions on every occasion, she was able to drag the suit for the past several years. The specific directions issued by this Court for immediate disposal of the suit could not be complied with, on account of the hurdles created by the petitioner. On earlier occasion the petitioner approached this Court by filing C.R.P.No.66 of 2010 complaining that the trial Court did not club O.S.No.83 of 2002 with O.S.No.82 of 2002. The said revision was dismissed by this Court on 29.01.2010. This was preceded by C.R.P.No.3476 of 2009 which was filed feeling aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 24.11.2008 in I.A.No.1063 of 2008 in O.S.No.83 of 2002. I.A.No.1063 of 2008 was filed for reopening of the suit for adducing further evidence. The said revision was also dismissed on 15.10.2009. It is rather curious that the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present revisions feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 12.11.2009 which were already in existence by the time the revisions referred to above were filed. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the revisions were filed in March, 2010 at a time when the evidence is completed and the arguments are advanced. On merits also the applications filed by the petitioner cannot be maintained. It is not understandable as to how the application under Order VI Rule 17 C.P.C. can be filed for the purpose of amending the deposition. The deposition is recorded by the Court and the petitioner has absolutely no right or entitlement to add a syllable to it. At the most, an application can be filed bringing to the notice of the Court the error, if any. The whole effort of the petitioner was to drag the suit on one pretext or the other. Therefore, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall ignore any application that may be filed by the petitioner hereafter. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 16th August, 2010 GHN