IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.551 of 2010 Between: Mallu Veera Reddy (died) and six others … APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS V. Mallu Koti Reddy and four others … RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS And CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.621 of 2010 Between: Mallu Veera Reddy (died) and six others … APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS V. Mallu Koti Reddy and four others … RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are directed against the common order dated 02-02-2010 passed in interlocutory applications being I.A.Nos.504 of 2009 and 505 of 2009 in O.S.No.144 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed both the applications. 2. The petitioners are plaintiffs and whereas respondents are defendants in O.S.No.144 of 2002. 3. Initially the suit was filed by one Mallu Veera Reddy. Pending the suit he died and plaintiffs 2 to 7 came on record as his legal representatives. By the time they came on record, the deceased first plaintiff had examined witnesses on his behalf and the case was coming up for evidence on behalf of the defendants. After closer of evidence on behalf of the defendants, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed I.A.No.504/2009 to reopen the suit for further evidence on their behalf and I.A.No.505 of 2009 to receive the documents filed along with the said petition. The fourth plaintiff has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the petitions. It is stated in the affidavit that the petitioners-plaintiffs secured certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.10 of 2001 and the same is required to be marked on their behalf. It is also stated in the affidavit that the petitioners/plaintiffs obtained certified copies of pahanies for the years 1975-1976 to 2008-2009 and land revenue receipts for the years 2005, 2006 and 2009 and the same are required to be marked on their behalf to substantiate their possession over the suit schedule property. 4. Paragraph No.5 of the affidavit of 4th plaintiff is placed hereunder and it is thus: “That I am filing the certified copy of plaint of O.S.No.10 of 2001 on the file of the District Judge, Nalgonda for marking the same and also I am filing certified copies of pahanies for the years 1975-76, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1992-93, 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2003- 2004, 2004-2005, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008- 2009 and land revenue receipts for the years 2005, 2006 and 2009 for the kind perusal of the Hon’ble Court. So as to establish our ownership and possession over the petition schedule property. That the certified copies were obtained from the office of MRO, Kodad long back but they were not filed before the Hon’ble Court by earlier advocate and it was traced when the evidence of defendants started. The above documents are public documents no loss or prejudice will be caused to the other side if the evidence of the plaintiffs is re-opened and I am advised to file these documents along with this affidavit as required under law.” 5. Defendants 3 and 4 filed counter resisting the applications. The learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties dismissed both the applications primarily on the ground that no application was moved to recall any of the witness to mark documents. Assailing the common order dated 02-02-2010 passed in I.A.Nos.504 of 2009 and 505 of 2009 in O.S.No.144 of 2002 these two revisions are filed by the plaintiffs. 6. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 17-02- 2010. Petitioners/plaintiffs were permitted to take out personal notice to respondents/defendants by registered post acknowledgment due and file proof of service. They took out notice to respondents 1 and 3 to 5 and filed proof of service on 08- 03-2010 in U.S.R.No.290 of 2010. Despite service of notice being effected on respondents 1 and 3 to 5, they did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. 7. Heard Sri K. Narasimhachari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/plaintiffs and perused the order impugned in the revision. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the evidence on behalf of the deceased plaintiff came to be closed prior to petitioners 2 to 7-plaintiffs 2 to 7 coming on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff and therefore, there was no opportunity for them to produce the pahani pathrikas and other relevant documents to speak of their possession over the suit schedule property. A further submission has made that even the deceased plaintiff himself hand over certain documents to the counsel appearing on his behalf and said counsel did not file the same in court and thereupon the plaintiffs 2 to 7, after their coming on record as legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff, changed the Advocate and thus there is a delay in filing the documents. 9. As seen from the order impugned in the revisions, the trial Court dismissed the applications primarily on the ground that the petitioners-plaintiffs have not filed any application to recall any of the witnesses so as to mark the documents on which they sought to place reliance. Unless the case is reopened and documents are received, question of summoning any witness to prove the same does not arise. Documents sought to be produced are the certified copies of the pahani pathrikas and certified copy of plaint in O.S.No.10 of 2001. 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the applications filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs can be allowed subject to certain terms and conditions. 11. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed at the admission stage, setting aside the common order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodad in I.A.Nos.504 of 2009 and 505 of 2009 in O.S.No.144 of 2002 subject to petitioners/plaintiffs paying an amount Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs to the respondents 1 and 3 to 5 herein within a week. On compliance of the condition of deposit of cost, both the applications being I.As.504/2009 and 505/2009 shall stand allowed. 12. Failing compliance of the condition of payment of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs as indicated above, the orders passed by the trial court shall hold good. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J March 23, 2010. Note: Furnish CC by 29-03-2010. B/o. Pn THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.551 of 2010 And CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.621 of 2010 March 23, 2010 Note: Furnish CC by 29-03-2010. B/o. Pn