HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.373 & 428 OF 2010 DATED 1st DECEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN Kakani Ranga Rao , …..Petitioner in both CRPs and Narisetty Kavitha Lakshmi and ors. …Respondents in both CRPs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.373 & 428 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of by this common order. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side. These two Civil Revision Petitions are ﬁled under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the common order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addankai, dismissing I.A.Nos. 1260 and 1261 of 2009 in O.S.No. 210 of 2001 ﬁled by the petitioner/Defendant No.1 to recall D.W.1 and mark the certified copy of ROR in Sy.No. 188/1. The ﬁrst and second respondents/Plaintiﬀs ﬁled the suit in O.S.No. 210 of 2001 against the petitioner & Respondents 3 to 5/defendants seeking permanent injunction. The petitioner & respondents 3 to 5/defendants contested the suit by filing written statement. When the suit is posted for the further evidence of the defendants, the petitioner/ﬁrst defendant ﬁled the impugned applications in I.A.No. 1260 of 2009 to call for D.W.1 for marking the ROR certiﬁed copy in Sy.No. 188/1 of North Addanki and I.A.No. 1261 of 2009 to receive the said document. The Court below on a consideration of the submissions advanced by learned Counsel on either side and material available on record, dismissed both the applications. Hence these revisions. The said certiﬁed copy of the ROR is sought to be marked on the ground that the land in S.No. 188/1 is in possession of Sree Ranganayaka Swamy, Dama Subbaiah and others. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiﬀs opposed the same on the ground the said averment was not pleaded in the Written statement. Further more, the petitioner/defendant No.1 has clearly admitted that all the suit schedule properties are in the possession and enjoyment of the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiﬀs. It is well known that without a pleading, no evidence either oral or documentary can be adduced. In that view of the matter, the Court below, observing that the petitioner/ﬁrst defendant has admitted the possession of the ﬁrst and second respondents/plaintiﬀs over the suit property and nothing was pleaded in this regard in the written statement, rightly dismissed both the interlocutory applications. In that view of the matter, I do not see any illegality or inﬁrmity in the order of the Court below, inviting interference in these revision petitions. The Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs in both the revision petitions. ------------------------------------ ------------------ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA DATED 1ST DECEMBER, 2010. mSNR