IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition Nos : 5608 & 5610 of 2008 Between: V.Bikshapathy and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND C.Pruthvi Raj Reddy and another. .....RESPONDENTS Order: As these two civil revision petitions are inter-related, they are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common order. C.R.P.No.6508 of 2008 is directed against the order, dated 21.11.2008, passed by the learned V Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Ranga Reddy District in I.A.No.492 of 2008 in O.S.No.790 of 2001, while C.R.P.No.5610 of 2008 is directed against the order, dated 21.11.2008, passed by the same learned Judge in I.A.No.493 of 2008 in O.S.No.790 of 2001. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.790 of 2001. The respondents filed the suit seeking declaration of title and injunction in the year 2001 claiming that the suit schedule property was purchased by the father of the respondents under an unregistered sale deed in the year 1964 and since then, they have been in possession of the same. The petitioners filed written statement in the suit way back in the year 2003. Thereafter, appropriate issues were framed, both the parties adduced evidence and the suit is coming up for arguments. At that stage, the petitioners filed the present two applications – (i) I.A.No.492 of 2008 under Section 45 of the Evidence Act r/w Section 151 CPC praying to send Ex.A2, agreement of sale, to the General Manager, Indian Security Press, Nasik Road, Maharastra, to find out whether the revenue stamp affixed on Ex.A2 was made prior to 20.01.1964 or not; and (ii) I.A.No.493 of 2008 under Order XVI Rule 14 r/w Section 151 CPC praying to summon the Tahsildar/Deputy Tahsildar to produce the acquittance Rolls of the staff of the Office of Tahsildar, Medchal Mandal, for the years 1976-77 to prove that late Pitla Rajaiah, one of the alleged attesting witness of Ex.A2, used to sign only, but not thumb impression. The respondents filed counters opposing the applications. Through the orders impugned herein the trial Court, after appreciation of the material on record, dismissed the applications holding that no useful purpose would be served by allowing the applications at the belated stage and that the petitioners filed the applications at the fag end to drag on the proceedings. This Court discerns no infirmity whatsoever in the orders of the trial Court warranting revisional interference, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:29.10.2009 VGB