HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.3571 & 3711 of 2011 Date : 9-9-2011 C.R.P.No.3571/2011 Between : Gadeela Sarala w/o. Prabhakar .. Petitioner And The Nalgonda Habitat for Humanity, Bhongir, Nalgonda District and others .. Respondents Counsel for petitioner : Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy Counsel for respondents : -- The court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed against common order dated 15-6-2011, in I.A.Nos.190 and 191 of 2011 in O.S.No.112/2003 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir. C.R.P.No.3571/2011 is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.190/2011 and C.R.P.No.3711/2011 is filed against the order in I.A.No.191/2011. The petitioner in both these Civil Revision Petitions is defendant No.1 in the suit filed by respondent No.1 for recovery of certain amounts. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence in the suit. After the arguments were commenced, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.190/2011 seeking reopening of the suit and I.A.No.191/2011 for summoning the President and the Secretary of respondent No.1 and one Battu Prem Kumar who is authorized by respondent No.1/plaintiff to represent it in the suit, along with the relevant documents. Both these applications having been dismissed by the court below, these two Civil Revision Petitions are filed by petitioner/defendant No.1. Sri K. Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the court below has committed a serious error in dismissing the two applications because according to the petitioner, respondent No.1/plaintiff has no competence to authorize Battu Prem Kumar to represent it in the suit. A perusal of the common order under Revisions shows that these two applications were filed much after the trial was closed and arguments were commenced. In fact, respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.603/2010 and I.A.No.709/2010 to permit Battu Prem Kumar to represent it as G.J. Nehmia, who was earlier authorized and looking after the suit proceedings, has passed away. The said applications were allowed by order dated 9-11-2010, which was allowed to become final, by the petitioner/defendant No.1. The court below has relied on the said circumstance and held that having not questioned the common order dated 9-11-2010, it is not permissible for the petitioner/defendant No.1 to raise the question of competence of respondent No.1/plaintiff to authorize Battu Prem Kumar to represent it in the suit. I find this reasoning of the court below, sound. Not only that the petitioner/defendant No.1 filed the two applications belatedly as the trial was closed and the suit was posted for arguments, having allowed the order dated 9-11-2010 permitting Battu Prem Kumar to represent the respondent No.1/plaintiff, to become final, it is not open to the petitioner/defendant No.1 to question the authority of respondent No.1/plaintiff to authorize Battu Prem Kumar. Evidently, the petitioner has filed these applications to prolong the suit and no purpose will be served by allowing these applications in the face of order dated 9-11- 2010 passed in I.A.Nos.603 and 709 of 2010. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, C.R.P.MP.No.5114/2011 in C.R.P.No.3571/2011 is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 9-9-2011 AM