IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. Nos.5839, 5943 and 5955 of 2010 Between: Vemula Vidyasagar and others … Petitioners and M/s.Vemula Manikyam … Respondent THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. Nos.5839, 5943 and 5955 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These revision petitions have been filed aggrieved by common order dated 12.11.2010 passed in I.A. No.1086, 1087 and 1088 of 2010 in O.S. No.8 of 2005 by the II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial. The revision petitioners are the respondents in the said I.As. and the defendants in the said O.S. The respondent herein is the petitioner in the said I.As. and the plaintiff in the said O.S. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/plaintiff filed O.S. No.8 of 2005 for perpetual injunction against the revision petitioners/defendants for plaintiff’s trade mark exclusive right to use, sell, print or exhibit, mark label over the Kismath Beedi and the Special Kismath Beedi etc., and the petitioners/defendants filed their detailed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. Upon considering the pleadings on either side, the Court below framed the issues, commenced trial and the evidence on either side was recorded and the matter was posted for arguments. At this juncture, the respondent/plaintiff filed said I.As. and the Court below eventually allowed those I.As. on payment of costs. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioners/defendants filed the present revision petitions. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that there was no justification on the part of the Court below in allowing the said I.As., since the trial has already been commenced in the suit and the matter is posted for arguments. He further submits that the document sought to be introduced by the respondent/plaintiff is no way relevant for the purpose of present suit and the respondent/plaintiff has filed the said I.As. only with an intention to dragon the matter. Therefore, the order under impugned is liable to be set aside and the revision petitions may be allowed. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is whether the Court below committed any error in allowing the said I.As., filed by the respondent/plaintiff? It is not in dispute that the suit is pending for adjudication before the Court below and the matter is posted for arguments. At this juncture, the respondent/plaintiff filed said I.As., seeking to receive the certified copy of certificate of Registration of Trade Mark dated 07.05.2006. The plea of the respondent/plaintiff was that he filed original trade mark registry dated 07.05.2006 issued by the Government of India which was dispatched to him on 25.02.2009 and the same was filed by him in O.S. No.2 of 2004, which was filed for partition of family properties and the same is pending. Thereafter, he applied and obtained certified copy of the said document from the Court below and filed the same in the present case, which is relevant to prove his case and so, for the purpose of marking that document it is necessary to recall P.W.1 and for that purpose the case, which is coming for arguments needs to be reopened. Revision petitioners/defendants filed counter in the said I.As., inter alia, stating that the respondent/plaintiff was aware of existence of the document since March, 2009 and so, there is no explanation for the delay occurred in filing the documents and so, it cannot be received, P.W.1 cannot be recalled and the suit need not be reopened. Now the counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the Court below committed an error in allowing the said I.As. At the out set, it is to be noted that O.S. No.2 of 2004 is pending, which was filed for partition of family properties against the respondent/plaintiff. In that suit, the document that is sought to be filed in the instant case was already filed in original, which is subsequent to the date of filing of suit O.S. No.2 of 2004. The certified copy now sought to be received is obtained from that original document and it is not the case of the revision petitioners that this document would cause prejudice to them. Further, the counsel for the revision petitioners reiterated the contentions already advanced before the Court below and I am of the view that having regard to the findings recorded by the Court below for allowing the said I.As., I do not find any illegality in the orders impugned so as to interfere with the same in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the civil revision petitions are devoid of merits and are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 27.12.2010 LSK