IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5424 of 2009 And CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5425 OF 2009 Between: Smt.Kamakshi and another ..... PETITIONERS AND K.Saradamma and others .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5424 OF 2009 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5425 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER : These two Civil Revision Petitions arising out of the proceedings in O.S.No.18 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur are heard together and decided by this common order. The Revision petitioners are the defendants 9 and 10 in O.S.No.18 of 2001 filed by the respondents herein seeking partition of the suit schedule properties and for allotment of half share in all the plaint schedule properties. The suit was contested by the defendants and the evidence on behalf of both parties was concluded. While the suit was coming up for arguments, the Revision petitioners / defendants 9 and 10 filed I.A.No.357 of 2009 and I.A.No.358 of 2009 to reopen the suit for the purpose of adducing evidence on their behalf and to receive the two documents namely Registered Sale Deed, dated 19.01.1960 and the Municipal Tax Receipts in evidence on their behalf. The said applications were opposed by the plaintiffs and the Court below, after hearing both the parties, by separate orders dated 30.10.2009 dismissed both I.A.Nos.357 & 358 of 2009. Aggrieved by the said orders, these two Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the defendants 9 and 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the orders under Revision suffered from any legal error warranting interference by this Court. As found by the Court below, the Revision petitioners did not refer to the documents now sought to be received in evidence in their written statement. They also failed to file the list of documents and the list of witnesses within the prescribed time after the issues were settled. Even in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.358 of 2009 the Revision petitioners could not offer any satisfactory explanation as to why the said documents could not be filed along with the written statement and the failure to produce the said documents during the trial. In the circumstances, the Court below declined to grant the permission as sought by the Revision petitioners and the said discretion exercised by the Court below on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held to be illegal or perverse. Hence, the interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is unwarranted. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 24.11.2009 Ivd