IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYSIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition Nos.2746 of 2009, 2747 of 2009, 2753 of 2009, 2754 of 2009 C.R.P.No.2746 of 2009 Between: Kadiyala Madhavi Latha .. Petitioner AND T. Gopala Rao .. Respondent C.R.P.No.2747 of 2009 Between: Kadiyala Madhavi Latha .. Petitioner AND T. Gopala Rao .. Respondent C.R.P.No.2753 of 2009 Between: Kadiyala Madhavi Latha .. Petitioner AND T. Gopala Rao .. Respondent C.R.P.No.2754 of 2009 Between: Kadiyala Madhavi Latha .. Petitioner AND T. Gopala Rao .. Respondent COMMON ORDER: These four Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order by the I Additional District Judge, Medak, at Sanga Reddy, on 23-03-2009 in I.A.Nos.198, 199, 200 and 201 of 2009 in O.S.No.27 of 2000 on his file. I.A.No.198 of 2009 was with a request to reopen the case, I.A.No.199 of 2009 is for recalling PW.2, I.A.No.200 of 2009 is for appointment of an advocate commissioner to record further evidence of PW.2 and I.A.No.201 of 2009 is for recalling DW.1 for further cross-examination. The affidavit in support of the applications was given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff stating that the plaintiff was examined as PW.1, who filed a memorandum of Oral Partition into Court, which was not marked. Though it was permitted to be marked by the Court, PW.2, who deposed on behalf of the plaintiff/ PW.1, was hospitalized and was not in a position to attend the Court, due to which his further examination has to be permitted by appointing advocate commissioner. It was further claimed in the affidavit of the learned counsel that though I.A.No.432 of 2008 filed earlier was allowed on 07-07-2008 and I.A.No.806 of 2008 filed earlier was dismissed for default on 20-10-2008, there is no bar for filing the present petitions for the reliefs as claimed in the larger interest of justice and equity. The plaintiff will suffer hardship, if the reliefs are not granted and hence, the petitions. The request was opposed by the defendant contending that the petitions as filed are not maintainable and that the counsel representing the plaintiff could not have deposed on behalf of the plaintiff with his affidavit in these petitions. The defendant contended that the suit, at the stage of arguments after closure of the evidence, cannot be reopened for further evidence and recalling of witnesses etc., at this stage and when there was no proper affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff by a person, who can depose with reference to the facts on behalf of the plaintiff, no relief can be granted. The defendant also contended that the document proposed to be marked is not primary evidence, but secondary evidence, which cannot be admitted without specifying the legal requirements, and therefore, the defendant sought for dismissal of the petitions. The trial Court passed the impugned order noting that the grounds given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, who deposed through his affidavit, are vague and do not disclose any genuine grounds for considering the reliefs requested. In the absence of clarity or substance, the trial Court felt that in the light of the order in I.A.No.432 of 2008 permitting recalling of PW.2 and DW.1, which was not acted upon, the reliefs cannot again be considered in the present petitions. The trial Court noted that the suit of the year 2000 is a long pending case and in fact, reserved for judgment once after the arguments were heard. The petitions are being filed by the plaintiff on one pretext or the other without any substance and therefore, the trial Court dismissed the applications without costs. The main grievance of the petitioner in these revision petitions is that the trial Court ought to have allowed the applications as it is only due to ill-health, the General Power of Attorney holder of the plaintiff could not be present when the petitions were called and the defendant is no other than the father of the plaintiff. It was further contended that the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the plaintiff and that they were entrusted to the plaintiff’s father/the defendant due to the plaintiff accompanying her husband to United States of America in connection with the employment of her husband. The plaintiff contended that unless the memorandum of Oral Partition is received, the plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss and therefore, she requested that the impugned common order be reversed. Sri S. Ravikumar, learned counsel, representing Sri A. Bichaiah, learned counsel for the revision petitioner-plaintiff and Sri Venkata Rangadas Kanuri, learned counsel for the respondent- defendant are heard. The point that arises for consideration is whether the rejection of the request made by the plaintiff by the trial Court was improper or unreasonable or unjustifiable? The copy of the order in I.A.No.432 of 2008 in O.S.No.27 of 2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy, dated 07-07-2008 was furnished by the learned counsel for the respondent and it is seen from the order that that petition was also for an identical relief to recall PW.2 and DW.1 for the purpose of marking the memorandum of Oral Partition under the circumstances stated in the affidavit given by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. The order further shows that earlier the trial Court allowed I.A.No.59 of 2002 and I.A.No.1048 of 2002 permitting the plaintiff to mark the memorandum of Partition and the defendant preferred C.R.P Nos.3856 of 2007 and 3862 of 2007 before the High Court against such permission, which revisions were dismissed by the High Court. It was on the basis of these confirmed orders that the plaintiff sought for permission to mark the memorandum of Oral Partition by recalling PW.2 and DW.1. The defendant resisted the petition on similar grounds about the incompetency of the learned counsel for the petitioner to give affidavit in support of the petition etc., and the trial Court in its order found that even by the time of that petition, both the parties adduced their oral and documentary evidence in the suit and the suit was at the stage of arguments. Still considering the principles laid down in G. Krishna Murthy v. Hemalatha Chit Funds Private Limited (2006 (3) ALT 460), which referred to Rule 54 of the Civil Rules of Practice enabling the advocate to make an application seeking the relief from the Court on behalf of the party, the trial Court considered that the plaintiff is entitled to mark the memorandum of Oral Partition as the plaintiff was already permitted to lead secondary evidence and consequently, the petition was allowed to recall PW.2 and DW.1. That order had admittedly become final but the reasons for the inability of the plaintiff to take advantage of the orders in I.A.No.432 of 2008 since 07-07-2008 till filing of the present petitions again were not stated and the affidavit of the learned counsel in support of the applications dated -03-2009 did not elaborate as to since when PW.2 was hospitalized and since when he was unable to attend before the trial Court for his further examination. In fact, the very affidavit of the learned counsel for the plaintiff in support of the present applications itself referred to I.A.No.432 of 2008 being allowed on 07-07-2008 and I.A.No.806 of 2008 being dismissed for default on 20-10-2008 and there is no dispute that both the petitions were for similar purposes. It is well settled that even interlocutory orders, even if they do not amount to res judicata or constructive res judicata, may amount to a bar against filing repeated applications for the same reliefs without any change of circumstances. It has been held by the Apex Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others[1] that if repeated applications are made for the same reliefs on the same grounds without any change of circumstances, the subsequent applications will have to fail as an abuse of process of law even if they are not barred by res judicata or constructive res judicata. The principle is very well applicable herein also when the plaintiff did not take advantage of the earlier orders passed in I.A.No.59 of 2002 and I.A.No.1048 of 2002 and C.R.P.Nos.3856 of 2007 and 3862 of 2007 and I.A.No.432 of 2008 and also did not take any steps to have the default orders in I.A.No.806 of 2008 reversed and when all the earlier orders had become final. The affidavit in support of the applications does not mention as to since when PW.2 was unable to attend the Court for his further examination. The trial Court cannot be considered unjustified in refusing to consider the reliefs requested for. Apart from the doubtful nature of the capacity of the counsel for the plaintiff to depose about the facts stated in the affidavit in support of the applications without any personal knowledge, the plaintiff cannot complain against the orders of the trial Court when the plaintiff brought the situation for herself by not acting promptly or reasonably earlier. When the evidence in the suit was closed long back and when even the arguments were heard once and the suit was reserved for judgment earlier, the belated applications were rightly rejected by the trial Court and the exercise of judicial discretion by the trial Court under Order-XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure or otherwise cannot be considered improper or unjustified or without jurisdiction. Therefore, all the revision petitions have to fail. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed without costs at the stage of admission. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 26-03-2010 Ksn [1] AIR 1964 Supreme Court 993 (1)