THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3173 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 08.07.2008 passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Gannavaram in allowing I.A.No.364 of 2008 in O.S.No.45 of 2001 filed by the first respondent/first defendant under Section 151 C.P.C to reopen the suit for the purpose of adducing further evidence by examining Ch.Radhakrishna of Surampalli for marking sale deed dated 08.05.1985. Admittedly, the suit itself is filed for declaration and for consequential injunction against the respondents/defendants. On closure of evidence of both sides, the matter was posted for arguments on 15.02.2008, on which date, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.128 of 2008 to reopen his evidence by issuing summons to the witness. On allowing the said I.A, one Gottipulla Venkaiah was examined as additional witness on behalf of the petitioner on 27.03.2008 and the matter was posted for arguments on 01.04.2008, on which date the first defendant filed the present I.A to reopen his evidence and to examine the additional witness by receiving registered sale deed 08.05.1985 said to have been executed by G.Venkata Siva Subbarayanam. According to the first defendant, the said G.Venkata Siva Subbarayanam executed registered sale deed in favour of Ch.Radhakrishna on 08.05.1985. The Court below, by the impugned order dated 08.07.2008, allowed the I.A on payment of costs of Rs.200/- to the plaintiff. Questioning the same, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present revision contending that two separate applications have to be filed for reopening the suit and for receiving documents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent. When the plaintiff filed single application in I.A.No.128 of 2008 to reopen his evidence and to examine additional witness, he cannot object the first defendant in filing single I.A for reopening and for receiving documents. It is well settled that the procedural law is meant to advance the justice, but not for denial of it. Time and again this Court held that a composite application for different reliefs can always be maintained and it is for the Court to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. In view of the same, no illegality is discernable in the discretion exercised by the Court below warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 04.02.2011 va