HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5417 & 5418 of 2011 Date: 30.12.2011 Between: Md.Rizwan ..... Petitioner And: Akkam Ramanjan Rao And seven others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.V.Venu For Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri M.Ramalingeswara Reddy The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Since the parties and the subject matter of these two Civil Revision Petitions are common, they are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioner in both these Civil Revision Petitions is respondent No.4 in R.C.C.No.1 of 2002 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, filed by respondent No.1 in both these Revision Petitions. Respondent No.1 filed the said R.C.C. seeking eviction of the petitioner from the petition schedule property. The petitioner has filed I.A.No.326 of 2011 seeking to call for the documents filed in O.S.No.1060 of 2001, which was filed by his father. He has filed I.A.No.324 of 2011 for recalling himself for further examination in connection with the documents sought to be summoned in I.A.No.326 of 2011. He has also filed I.A.No.325 of 2011 seeking re-opening of the said R.C.C., which was closed after evidence, with a view to adduce further evidence on his behalf. By a separate order, dated 05.09.2011, I.A.No.326 of 2011 was dismissed by the Court below. Following the said dismissal, I.A.Nos.324 and 325 of 2011 were also dismissed. Civil Revision Petition No.5418 of 2011 is filed against the order, dated 05.09.2011, in I.A.No.324 of 2011, and Civil Revision Petition No.5417 of 2011 is filed against the order, dated 05.09.2011, in I.A.No.325 of 2011. A perusal of these orders would show that since I.A.No.326 of 2011 was dismissed, following the same, both I.A.Nos.324 and 325 of 2011 were also dismissed. At the hearing, it is not disputed that the purpose of filing I.A.Nos.324 and 325 of 2011 was to enable the petitioner to adduce further evidence with reference to the documents which were sought to be summoned in I.A.No.326 of 2011. However, this purpose is defeated with the dismissal of I.A.No.326 of 2011, the order in which has become final as the petitioner failed to question the same. In this view of the matter, the Court below was right in dismissing both I.A.Nos.324 and 325 of 2011. Therefore, the impugned orders do not suffer from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions, C.R.P.M.P.Nos.7665 and 7666 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim reliefs are dismissed as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th December 2011 DR