THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3459, 3460, 3462 and 3463 of 2011 DT.27.8.2011 Between: Karumuru Veera Reddy s/o Guruva Reddy … Petitioner And Karumuru Gurava Reddy s/o Veera Reddy & ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N.Ravi Prasad Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.3459, 3460, 3462 and 3463 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: All these revisions arise out of the orders dated 8-7-2011, made in I.A.Nos.598, 780, 596 and 597 of 2001 in O.S.No.306 of 2007, on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit filed by the petitioner for declaration that he is the owner of the plaint schedule property. The petitioner filed the aforesaid I.As for granting leave to file the documents of the partition list dated 7-10-1954, to receive the rejoinder on behalf of the plaintiff, to reopen the suit and to recall PW.1 by receiving additional chief-examination affidavit. In all the said I.As counters were filed opposing the said applications and all the applications are dismissed by the impugned orders, against which, these four revisions are filed. In the instant case, the plaintiff’s evidence was closed in 2009 itself, and thereafter, the evidence of the defendants was also closed. The petitioner in fact earlier filed several petitions to recall the witnesses without availing the opportunity during the course of the trial, and in fact, the petitioner was given handful opportunities to adduce evidence, and after allowing his application for recalling, the petitioner was examined as PW.3 and reported no further evidence on his behalf on 30-4-2011. After closing the evidence of the defendants and when the matter was coming up for arguments, again at the instance of the petitioner, the matter was reopened permitting him to adduce further evidence. Only after the petitioner reported no further evidence, the matter was posted for arguments. It is evident from the impugned orders that the petitioner was not diligent in prosecuting the suit. He took seven adjournments for cross-examining DW.1 and cross-examined DW.1 only in part, and subsequently failed to cross-examine DW.1 further, as such, his right of cross-examination was forfeited. So also is the attitude of the petitioner with regard to cross- examination of DW.2, which resulted in forfeit of his right to cross-examine. On the request of the petitioner by filing petitions only, he was permitted to further cross-examine DW.1 and DW.2, and after cross-examination of DW.3, the matter was posted for arguments. At this juncture, when the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner has come up with the said applications to mark oral partition list dated 7-7-1994 without showing any sufficient cause for condonation of inordinate delay and without explaining as to why he has not filed. Similarly, the other applications have been filed without any cogent reasons. Therefore I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly dismissed all the applications. I do not see any legal infirmity in the order under revision warranting interference. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V. ESWARAIAH,J) DATE: 27.8.2011 grk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3459, 3460, 3462 and 3463 of 2011 DATE: 27.8.2011