IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4588 of 2009 Between: Konnepati Raghava Rao and 3 others ..... PETITIONERS AND Vyricherla Kishore Chandra Suryanarayana Deo and 3 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4588 of 2009 O R D E R: The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs who filed the suit O.S.6/2001 on the file of the VII Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of title in respect of Items-1 to 4 of the suit schedule property and for consequential injunction. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Respondents Nos.1 and 2 herein also filed a suit in O.S.203/2005 on the file of the same Court for injunction in respect of the same suit schedule property. It is stated that the 1st plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination in 2007 in the present suit and defendants Nos.1 and 2 who filed another suit in O.S.203/2005 were also filed affidavits in lieu of their chief examination, and an advocate-commissioner was appointed to record the evidence in both the suits. It is stated that the Advocate-Commissioner recorded the evidence in their suit, but in so far as the petitioners/plaintiffs herein in O.S.6/2001 are concerned, the Advocate-Commissioner did not record the evidence and the warrants were recalled and the evidence was closed on behalf of the petitioners herein. Therefore, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.1056/2009 for reopening their evidence. The said application was dismissed by the Court below without assigning any reasons, by docket order dated 01.09.2009 stating that the suit is old matter pertaining to 2001 and already numbers of eyewitnesses were examined on behalf of the petitioners and the matter is at the stage of arguments. Both the suits are connected and admittedly the Advocate- Commissioner could not record the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs in their suit, and for return of the warrant is not for the lapses or fault on the part of the petitioners, and therefore, it cannot be said that the application filed for reopening of the case is without any justification. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.1056/2009 filed by the petitioners herein stands allowed. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. As it is stated that the other suit filed by defendants Nos.1 and 2 is still pending, the Court below may dispose of the suit OS.No.6/2001 without any undue delay. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 27.01.2011 Dsr