THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3 2 6 7 OF 2009. O R D E R : Aggrieved of the order dated 18-4-2009 passed in I.A.No. 548 of 2008 in OS.No. 823 of 2002 by the learned VIII-Additional Senior Civil Judge, (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking to reopen the evidence of PW.1 and to mark the documents as mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, this Civil Revision Petition is filed. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the main suit, which was filed for declaration and recovery of possession of house bearing No. 22-4-634 inside Yakutpura, Hyderabad against the respondents-defendants 1 to 5. The petitioner herein and the respondent No.1 are the own sons of Late G. Anantharam and Late G. Satyamma and whereas Respondent No.2 is younger second sister and Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are the children of the respondents. On the basis of will dated 15-10-1985 executed by his deceased father, the petitioner is seeking declaration of his title to the suit schedule property and also recovery of possession by evicting the respondents thereof. The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 on 25-2-2004 and thereafter he was cross-examined by the respondents and the matter was listed for further examination of DW.1. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that due to over sight certain documents were not filed at the time of filing of the suit and the documents mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition are not received in evidence on his behalf, he will be put to irreparable loss. Therefore, it is just and equitable to recall PW.1 to adduce further chief examination for marking the said documents on his behalf. 4. On the other hand, Respondent No.1 filed counter his counter-affidavit denying the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. In the counter-affidavit, Respondent No.1 averred that the documents mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition seems to be available with the petitioner at the time of filing of the suit but he did not explain as to why he did not file those documents along with the suit. The documents being relied by the petitioner are not true and correct because the petitioner created those documents to meet his illegal desires by playing fraud on the court and the petitioner approached the court with unclean hands to make wrongful gain and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. On the basis of the rival contentions, the learned trial Judge after hearing both parties, dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner would have filed those documents even at the stage of his evidence or even at the time of cross-examination of the defendants. But the petitioner did do so. More over, the affidavit filed in support of the petition is silent as to when those documents came to light. The learned trial Judge further observed that mere mentioning the descriptive particulars of the documents and seeking to mark the same on the ground that they were not filed due to over sight after the closure of evidence of both parties and when the matter had reached for arguments is not a sufficient cause as required under Order-VII, Rule 1 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed the present revision petition. 7. Sri Ram Krishna Murthy, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had taken this Court through the various averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition and would maintain that when the trial court was seized of the matter to set out evidence by dismissing three interlocutory applications in the manner done to the impugned order is not a just disposal and the common order does not reflect consideration of the aspects involved in each interlocutory application. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and on perusing the records, it appears that the revision petitioner has not specifically mentioned as to when the documents came to light and in whose possession those documents were lying and why he did not file those documents even at the time of either his evidence or the evidence of respondents. In my considered opinion, the learned trial Judge is perfectly justified in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner seeking to receive and mark the documents in question. The order impugned in this revision does not call for any indulgence of this Court. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is sans merit and accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. In the circumstances, both parties shall bear their own costs. ________________________ JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI 24-07-2009. I s L