THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.No.2947 OF 2009 And C.R.P.No.2948 of 2009 ORAL COMMON ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is connected and the parties are same, they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Civil Revision Petition Nos.2947 and 2948 of 2009 are directed against the order, dated 18.06.2009, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, in I.A.Nos.605 and 604 of 2009 in O.S.No.82 of 1999, respectively. 4. I.A.No.604 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein praying to re-open the evidence of P.W-1 for cross-examination on behalf of the first defendant and I.A.No.605 of 2009 was filed by the petitioner herein under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying the Court to recall P.W-1 (second plaintiff) and D.W-1 (defendant) for further cross-examination in order to get clarification with regard to the events. The Court below dismissed both the said applications. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petitions. 5. Petitioner is the second defendant and respondents 1 and 2 are plaintiffs 1 and 2, respectively, and respondent No.3 is the first defendant in the suit. 6. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in the suit. 7. The factual background of the case appears to be that originally, the first plaintiff, who is the mother of the second defendant, filed the suit against the first defendant for declaration of her title in respect of the suit schedule property. 8. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died resulting in filing of an application by plaintiff No.2, who is no other than the brother of the second defendant, to implead himself. The said application was allowed and he stepped into the shoes of the deceased-first plaintiff. Since then, all the contentions of both the sides have been intact, particularly the plaintiff No.2 who subsequently got impleaded cannot have an independent claim than the one raised by the first plaintiff. 9. Be that as it may, the second defendant, who is the brother of the plaintiff No.2 and son of the deceased-first plaintiff, filed an interlocutory application to implead him in the suit in the year 2007, whereas the suit was filed in the year 1999. Till the said application for impleadment was filed, in all the eight years preceding his application to implead, the second defendant did not raise any question contrary to the interest of the plaintiffs. 10. In fact, the second defendant filed a written statement in the suit contending that the deceased-first plaintiff, who was his mother, had only right of limited estate and therefore, cannot claim any independent title. As a result, there is a conflict of interest between the deceased-first plaintiff, the plaintiff No.2, who subsequently got impleaded, and the petitioner herein, who got himself impleaded in the suit in the year 2007 as the second defendant. In the above background of the case, the events that took place and the manner in which the said events have taken place would only speak volumes about the conduct of the petitioner herein. 11. For the foregoing, I do not see any necessity nor bona fides for the petitioner to file the present applications, particularly at the stage when the suit is posted for arguments and consequently I do not find any merits in the Civil Revision Petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed, at the stage of admission, with costs. 13. It is needless to mention that the observations made by this Court, while dismissing the Civil Revision Petitions, shall not be understood as having expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 14. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit independently, after appreciating the evidence on record, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court, in this Civil Revision Petitions. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 30th October 2009 DR