IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.4542, 4544 AND 4556 OF 2007 DATED:03.12.2010 Between: Govindlal Darak … Petitioner And Kamala Rathi and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.4542, 4544 AND 4556 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: These three civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the orders dt.18.9.2007 passed by the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in allowing the applications filed by the respondents – defendant Nos.1 to 5 being I.A. Nos.224, 225 and 226 of 2007 respectively in O.S. No.114 of 1995. Since the revisions petitions are inter-connected and arise out of one suit, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S. No.114 of 1995 which was filed for partition and separate possession of properties and for mesne profits. He is aggrieved against the orders dt.18.9.2007 in allowing the applications filed by the respondent – defendant Nos.1 to 5 in I.A. Nos.224, 225 and 226 of 2007 in O.S. No.114 of 1995. The applications were filed one to reopen the suit, the second one to recall P.W.1 and the third one to mark certain documents. The case of the petitioner is that the matter was already heard by the Court below and at that stage the interlocutory applications were filed and were posted for counter. The Court below without giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and others, straight away allowed the applications filed by the respondent – defendant Nos.1 to 5 by simply observing that “Counter not filed. No representation for respondents. Heard Counsel for the petitioners. Petition is allowed.” Aggrieved by the same, present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is now well settled that no document can be received unless the same is marked. Necessary opportunity has to be given to the parties concerned at the time of marking the documents. A perusal of the impugned orders would show that they are not only lack of reasons but also do not reflect the correct state of affairs and that no opportunity was given to the petitioner – plaintiff. In that view of the matter, the three civil revision petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dt.18.9.2007, passed by the Court of XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, in I.A. Nos.224, 225 and 226 of 2007 in O.S.No.114 of 1995, are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court below for fresh disposal on merits after giving notice and opportunity to the parties concerned. No costs. _______________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J 03.12.2010 bnr