THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.Nos.3706, 3707 and 3708 of 2009 Date: 13-8-2009 C.R.P.No.3706 of 2009: Between P.Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner and Smt. P.Geeta Sri … Respondent C.R.P.No.3707 of 2009: Between P.Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner and Smt. P.Geeta Sri … Respondent C.R.P.No.3708 of 2009: Between P.Venkateswara Rao … Petitioner and Smt. P.Geeta Sri … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA C.R.P.Nos.3706, 3707 and 3708 of 2009 Oral Common Order: Heard Sri Shyam Sunder Murthy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Since these revisions are inter-related and arise out of one and the same O.P., they are being disposed of by this common order. C.R.P.No.3706 of 2009: 3. Challenging the docket order, dated 03-8-2009, passed by the Judge, Family Court, Vijayawada, Krishna district in rejecting the application I.A.G.R.No.1691 of 2009 filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to recall P.W.1 to lead further evidence, the present revision is filed by the petitioner. 4. The petitioner-husband filed O.P.No.435 of 2004 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act before the trial Court seeking divorce. 5. It is brought to the notice of this Court that when the matter is reserved for judgment, the petitioner filed the application I.A.No.901 of 2009 along with the other applications to reopen the matter for further evidence, which was dismissed by the trial Court. In order to make mention about the subsequent developments that took place after the filing of the O.P., this is done when the matter is reserved for judgment. Obviously, the present application is filed only to delay the proceedings. That part, no irreparable injury or prejudice is going to be caused or likely to be caused to the petitioner. The other grievances expressed in the other revision petitions can always be raised in the appeal in the event of the petitioner obtaining an adverse order/judgment in the main O.P., filed by him, as contemplated under Section 105 C.P.C. 6. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the impugned order. C.R.P.Nos.3707 and 3708 of 2009: 7. These revisions are directed against the orders, dated 03-8-2009, in rejecting the applications I.A.G.R.Nos.1693 and 1692 of 2009, seeking to condone the delay in filing additional documents and amendment of O.P., respectively, passed by the trial Court. 8. In view of the dismissal of C.R.P.No.3706 of 2009, which is filed against the order in I.A.G.R.No.1691 of 2009 seeking reopening of the O.P., no further orders need be passed in these civil revision petitions and accordingly they are dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the impugned orders. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 13th August, 2009. Ak