IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2248 of 2011 Between: Vedam Ramakrishna RAo & 2 others .. Revision Petitioners AND Bijja Mallaiah & 22 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2248 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri Shafath Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners at the stage of admission. 2. The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order of the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahaboobnagar, dated 27.04.2011, in I.A.No.246 of 2011 in O.S.No.126 of 2005, refusing to reopen the suit for further evidence of the plaintiffs for examination of an Advocate, who was claimed to have issued Ex.A-19-registered legal notice, as P.W.7. The trial Court, in the impugned order, has noted that though the suit was reserved for judgment on 21.02.2011, the interlocutory applications disabled it from pronouncing the judgment. The trial Court also referred to the pleadings in the plaint and the written statement whereunder, the issuance of Ex.A-19-legal notice and Ex.A-20-reply notice were averred by the plaintiffs and were denied in the written statement. The trial Court further observed about the lengthy cross-examination of the witnesses by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs before the trial Court even concerning Exs.A-19 and A-20 and felt that the petition, after completion of the evidence and the suit was at the stage of arguments, has been filed to drag on the proceedings. The trial Court also observed that when there is no dispute with regard to the genuineness of the document, it is not inclined to consider the petition. 3. The plaintiffs challenged the said order in revision contending that the petition to reopen the evidence of the plaintiffs was allowed on 27.04.2011 in I.A.No.175 of 2011, while this petition to examine the witness was dismissed. The evidence of the Advocate about the issuance of Ex.A-19-legal notice and receipt of Ex.A-20-Reply notice becomes necessary for proper adjudication of the issues in view of the denial of the first defendant about the same in his evidence. The plaintiffs mainly object to irregularity of the procedure in allowing the petition for reopening and dismissing the petition for examining the Advocate. 4. The affidavit in support of the application in question given by the second plaintiff itself shows that even in the written statement in para 3, it was specifically denied that any legal notice was issued by the first defendant to Shakunthala Bai or Shakunthala Bai gave any reply. Therefore, the specific plea in defence about Exs.A-19 and A-20 was known to the plaintiffs since the filing of the written statement much before the commencement of trial and in the counter affidavit on behalf of the defendants in this application, it was specifically stated that the denial in the written statement was in the year 2006. The fact that the first defendant was cross-examined at length about Exs.A-19 and A-20 as noted by the trial Court in the impugned order also cannot be in dispute. 5. The suit is stated by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, to be one for declaration and possession concerning immovable property. If it were so, the truth or otherwise of the issuance of legal notice or reply to it will not be the determinate factors in considering the right of the plaintiffs to have such declaration and possession. The issuance of such notice and a reply to the same would have only been circumstances indicating the conduct of the parties with reference to the property in question not having any material effect on the presence or absence of title in the property for any party. While the order permitting the reopening of the evidence of the plaintiffs said to have been passed in I.A.No.175 of 2011 might have been by the trial Court to consider permitting any such evidence if it were material, if the trial Court finds in this interlocutory application that calling the Advocate who issued the legal notice to the witness box cannot be permitted, the same cannot be considered unjust merely because of the order passed in I.A.No.175 of 2011. No material infirmity can be discerned from the impugned order which requires interference in the restricted exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition should fail. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs at the stage of admission. _______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 25th July, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2248 of 2011 Date: 25th July, 2011 KL