IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS the 8th day of April, 2011. PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 4377, 4378 and 4379 of 2010 Between: Sadaraboina Venkata Ramana ..Petitioner and Kuralla Kodanda Ram Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 4377, 4378 and 4379 of 2010 Common order: As all these revisions arise out of the same proceedings, they are all taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. In the suit filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money, basing on a mortgage deed, after closure of the evidence by the plaintiff and also after closure of the evidence of the petitioner as DW-1, when she failed to lead evidence her evidence was closed on 14.12.2009 and posted the matter for arguments on 21.12.2009. On that date the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No. 592 of 2009 under Order VIII Rule 14 to condone the delay in filing certain documents; I.A.No. 593 of 2009 under Order XVIII Rule 7 CPC to recall DW-1 to give further evidence and I.A.No. 594 of 2009 to reopen the suit for the purpose of further evidence stating that the plaintiff collusively obtained the registered sale deed in the name of his brother, which is not supported by consideration, which according to the petitioner was by force and subsequently she sold the property to one P. Polavarapu Krishna Kumari on 01.02.2006. It is further stated by the petitioner that due to her frequent ill health, she could not obtain the registration extracts of the document dated:13.1.2004 and the subsequent sale deed dated:1.2.2006 and therefore she may be permitted to file the said documents to substantiate her plea. 3. The respondent/plaintiff filed his counter stating that in the written statement filed by the defendant it was averred that she executed the sale deed on 13.01.2004 and the said purchaser also sold the property on 1.2.2006. But she did not file any document and on completion of evidence, she came up with the present petitions to permit her to lead such evidence. It is not in dispute that she mentioned about these documents in the written statement and also in the chief examination. But she has not filed the said documents to substantiate her plea neither when she was examined, nor reserved her right to file the said documents at a later stage and lead evidence subsequently. After closure of the evidence when she reported no further evidence, the matter was closed and posted for arguments and at that stage the present applications are filed. 4. The simple issue in the present suit is whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount basing on the alleged registered mortgage deeds marked as Exs A-1 and A-2. Therefore, the sale deeds executed by the defendant in favour of the third parties viz., brother of the plaintiff, which is not supported by any consideration and who in turn executed the sale deed in favour of some other third party, cannot be an issue in the present suit to be decided in their absence. In view of the same it is evident that the present applications are filed by the petitioner only with a view to protract the litigation. In such view of the matter, the trial court has rightly dismissed the interlocutory applications. Therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court. 5. In the result all the revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. Date:08-04-2011. *BVS 275 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 4377, 4378 and 4379 of 2010 (Common order) 08—04--2011