IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTEENTH (19TH) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.3220, 3474 and 3475 of 2007 Between: Pinninti Latchannaidu … Petitioner And: DGM Anandha Rao & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.3220, 3474 and 3475 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: These three revision petitions arose out of the common order dated 11.07.2007 passed in IA Nos.964, 965 and 966 of 2007 in OS No.75 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, wherein the said applications filed by the petitioner herein-D.1 to reopen the defendant’s evidence, recall DW.1 for further evidence and to mark certain documents, were dismissed. 2. None appeared for the petitioner. No representation is made on his behalf. Heard the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 herein. Perused the record. 3. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed suit for declaration and for permanent injunction against the petitioner-first defendant and 4th respondent herein. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. After framing necessary issues, the trial of the suit has commenced. PWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. DWs.1 to 3 were examined on behalf of the defendants and the matter was coming up for further evidence. The petitioner herein filed IA No.643 of 2007 to examine the Commissioner as a witness and the said petition was dismissed on 25.06.2007. Subsequently on 02.07.2007 PW.3 was examined by way of rebuttal evidence. At that stage, the petitioner-D.1 filed present set of applications seeking to reopen the evidence, recall himself for further evidence and to mark the document namely interim order of stay granted by this court in CMP No.156 of 1999 in AS No.31 of 1995 which arose out of the judgment in OS No.1 of 1992, a suit said to have been filed by the petitioner-D.1 against the District Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Ranasthalam for declaration of title. The affidavit filed in support of the application is silent about how the said document is relevant for the purpose of the present suit. Further when the said order is said to have been passed in the year 1999, there was absolutely no reason as to why the said document could not be filed by the petitioner/D.1 at an earlier stage during the proceedings in the suit, which was filed in the year 2000. In the impugned order, the learned Junior Civil Judge observed that the petition is filed only to protract the proceedings and no reasons are furnished for the delay in filing the document. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to interfere with the impugned order of the trial court dismissing the three applications 4. It is stated that in the order dated 26.07.2006 in CRP No.6162 of 2005, which arose out of the present suit there was direction to the trial court to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of communication of the order. The said order was passed in the year 2006. The suit is still pending without being disposed of. The trial Court is therefore directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously. 5. In the result, all the three revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 19.08.2011 bss