THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.Nos. 3951, 3952 and 3953 of 2011. COMMON ORDER: These three revisions are by the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 164 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and are directed against the common order dt. 27.7.2011 rejecting I.A.Nos. 1150, 1149 and 1151 of 2011; filed seeking to adduce further evidence in the suit; to reopen the plaintiff’s evidence for adducing further evidence; and to summon the Editor of the Telugu daily newspaper Vartha city edition dt. 24.6.2006. Evidence was recorded in the suit and the matter was coming up for arguments. The 2nd plaintiff was examined as Pw.1 in the suit; he produced some documents on behalf of the plaintiffs. The defendant was examined as DW.1 and cross-examined by the plaintiffs. Initially, the plaintiffs did not turn up for cross-examining Dw.1 in spite of several adjournments and at one stage, cross-examination of Dw.1 was recorded as ‘nil’ and the matter was posted for arguments on 13.7.2011. On that day, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 1074 of 2011 to recall Dw.1 for cross- examination. Despite persistent laches by the plaintiffs in cross- examining Dw.1, the said application was allowed and Dw.1 was eventually cross-examined. When the suit was posted for arguments on 21.7.2011, the plaintiffs had filed five applications including I.A.Nos. 1149 to 1151 of 2011. The court below by recording succinct but comprehensive and clear reasons rejected these applications recording reasons as under: As can be seen from the docket, right from the inception, the plaintiff has been adopting dilatory tactics in prosecuting the suit filed by him. After the second plaintiff was examined as Pw.1, he did not turn up for adducing further evidence inspite of granting reasonable opportunity. Ultimately, he was also called absent and as there was no representation on is behalf on 31.5.2011, his evidence was closed and the suit was posted for the evidence of the defendant. The same is evident from the docket. After the defendant was examined as Dw.1, the plaintiff again did not turn up for cross-examination of Dw.1 in spite of granting several adjournments and even after adjourning the suit on costs and also on the adjournment petition filed by him and ultimately, the cross-examination of Dw.1 was recorded nil as the plaintiff did not turn up for cross- examination of Dw.1 in spite of giving several adjournments and the matter is posted for arguments to 13.7.2011. On that day, again the plaintiff filed I.A.No. 1074 of 2011 to recall Dw.1 for cross-examination. Even though there are several latches on the part of the plaintiff in cross-examining Dw.1 as stated supra, yet, to provide him an opportunity to cross-examine Dw.1, the said petition was allowed and Dw.1 was cross- examined. Thereafter, the suit is posted for arguments again to 21.7.2011. Again, on that day, the plaintiff has come up with all these spate of five petitions to reopen his evidence, to recall Pw.1 for further examination and also to summon the Editor of paper etc., almost relegating the suit to the initial stage of commencing trial. Therefore, the latches on the part of the plaintiff is very much apparent from his conduct and the docket of the suit. At every stage, he has been coming forward with these interlocutory applications and stalling the proceedings of the suit. Now, even as can be seen from the present petitions, the main ground on which he is seeking to reopen his evidence is to summon the Editor Vartha daily newspaper of Visakhapatnam city edition and the said paper dt. 24.6.2006. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that to prove that the defendant gave the said statement against the petitioner, they are summoned as the defendant denied the same in his cross-examination as Dw.1. The said explanation given by the petitioner is absolutely false. It is not as though that Dw.1 has for the first time denied giving any such press statement even at the earliest point of time in his pleadings in his written statement itself. So, the plaintiff is fully aware of the fact that the defendant has filed his written statement. So, the plaintiff ought to have taken steps to summon the said paper or the Editor at the time of adducing his evidence itself. He did not take any such steps at the time of adducing evidence of the plaintiff. Now, after closure of the trial and when the matter stood posted for arguments at this fag end of the suit, he filed these petitions to summon the said paper and the Editor. So, the explanation given by the plaintiff that as Dw.1 denied in his cross-examination that he gave any such statement that he has to now file these petitions to summon the said paper and Editor is absolutely false and it is a blatant lie. As the defendant denied the issuance of any such statement in his written statement itself, the plaintiff is fully aware of the said fact at the initial stage of the trial itself. So, it cannot be said that the said paper and the Editor is to be summoned now on the false explanation given by the plaintiff. Even otherwise, the plaintiff did not produce the said paper clipping till today in the court to know its contents whether it is essential to summon the same or not. It cannot be said that without reading the said publication in the paper, he has filed the suit stating that the defendant has given a press statement against him in the said newspaper. When he read the said newspaper and thereafter filed the plaint, the said newspaper would be very much available with him to produce the same in the Court. He did not produce the same for the reasons best known to him and no explanation is offered till now either in his evidence or in these petitions for non- production of the said newspaper by him. So, when the very newspaper is not produced before the Court by him, it is not possible to decide whether the Editor is to be summoned to prove the said publication or not. It is only when the said newspaper is produced in the Court and if the Court finds any imputations are made against the plaintiff in the said news item and if the Court finds that it is essential to summon the Editor to prove the said publication to resolve the controversy then this Court can summon the same for the purpose of arriving at any just decision in the case. So, when he did not produce the said newspaper clipping to know the news item and contents, I absolutely see no reason to summon the Editor to give evidence regarding the same. Therefore, as the plaintiff knowing fully well that the defendant denied the issuance of any such press statement in the written statement itself and as he did not take any steps to produce the said newspaper to summon the editor till the evidence of the defendant is closed and the matter is posted for arguments and as the newspaper itself is not produced in the Court till now, I do not see any valid reason or merit in the petitions filed by the petitioners to reopen the evidence of the plaintiffs and to summon the Editor and newspaper. In view of the reasons recorded by the court below for rejecting I.A.Nos. 1149 to 1151 of 2011, and this Court is in agreement with these reasons, there is no revisable error discernible from the composite order of the court below. This Court finds no justification for exercising revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution. These revisions are accordingly dismissed, at the stage of admission. There shall however be no order as to costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 14.10.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.Nos. 3951, 3952 and 3953 of 2011. COMMON ORDER: DT. 14.10.2011.