THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2868, 2870 and 2871 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.90 of 2004 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Markapur against the 2nd respondent and Venkata Lakshmamma as defendant No.2, for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, Venkata Lakshmamma died. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 came on record as her legal representatives. The trial of the suit is in progress. P.W.7, the Mandal Revenue Officer, was examined to prove the pattadar Pass book said to have been issued to the 1st respondent. The petitioner and respondents 3 to 7 filed I.A.Nos.291, 292 and 293 of 2011 for the reliefs of reopening the evidence of P.W.7, recalling P.W.7 for further cross-examination and for production of the records pertaining to an application submitted by one Smt.Yenumala Subbamma on 20.02.1999, respectively. It was pleaded that when P.W.7 was being cross-examined, they were not aware of the factum of submission of an application by Subbamma, the vendor of the 1st respondent, and that the said record is relevant and pertinent for resolution of the dispute in the suit. The applications were opposed by the 1st respondent. Through separate orders, dated 30.03.2011, the trial Court dismissed all the three applications. Hence, these three revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit is pending for the past seven years. The reasons for not disposal of the same are not immediately before this Court. The prayer in the suit is for declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The petitioner and other legal representatives of defendant No.2 wanted the trial Court to summon the file pertaining to the application said to have been submitted by the vendor of the 1st respondent, in the suit for declaration of title. Ultimately, it is for the 1st respondent to prove her title vis-à-vis the property. In case, the petitioner or other legal representatives of defendant No.2 have any superior title, they have to place necessary oral and documentary evidence before the trial Court. There was no justification for them to file an application for reopening the evidence of P.W.7. The trial Court has assigned cogent reasons for the dismissal of the applications. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 25.07.2011 Jsu THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2868, 2870 and 2871 of 2011 Date: 25.07.2011 JSU