HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3392 and 3928 of 2010 Date 03.09.2010 CRP.No.3392 of 2010 Between: S.Abdul Khadar Jelani. ..... PETITIONER AND Kurnool Municipal Corporation rep. By its Commissioner, Kurnool. .....RESPONDENT CRP.No.3928 of 2010 Between: S.Abdul Khadar Jelani. ..... PETITIONER AND Kurnool Municipal Corporation rep. By its Commissioner, Kurnool. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K.Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: None appeared The Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3392 and 3928 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of common order dated 07.07.2010 in I.A.Nos. 919 of 2009 and 224 of 2010 in O.S.No. 292 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit referred to above. During the trial, he has let in oral and documentary evidence and, thereafter, the respondent-defendant also adduced evidence on its side. After the evidence was closed and the case was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.919 of 2009 for reopening the evidence and I.A.No.224 of 2010 to summon the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool and permit him to mark the documents shown at Sl.Nos.2 and 3 in the schedule to the petition. Both these I.As. having been dismissed by the Court below, the petitioner filed the present revision petitions. At the hearing Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that as the respondent-defendant has alleged that Exs.A.1 and A.2 filed by the petitioner were fabricated and not genuine, the petitioner was constrained to file the two I.As in order to disprove the said allegation. He has further submitted that dismissal of the said two applications has resulted in miscarriage of justice. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In the first place, the petitioner has failed to show due diligence in filing the applications. If he felt the necessity of summoning the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool, he ought to have filed the applications before the commencement of his evidence or atleast before closing his evidence. After the entire evidence is closed and the case is posted for arguments, the petitioner has come up with the two applications. Further more, as rightly observed by the Court below, the two documents which are proposed to be filed by the petitioner are already on record as Exs.A.1 and A.2. Therefore, there is no need for the petitioner to file these documents. As regards the reason assigned by the petitioner for seeking to summon the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kurnool, that the respondent has made an allegation that the pattas are bogus, as the initial burden lies on the respondent to prove this allegation, it is for the respondent to take necessary steps to substantiate the said allegation by adducing evidence. Therefore, I do not find any reason for the petitioner to file the two applications at the belated stage purportedly to disprove the allegation of the respondent regarding the genuineness of the pattas. For the above mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petitions and they are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of main petitions, CRP.MP.Nos. 4526 and 4609 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief are dismissed as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:03.09.2010 usd