THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1949 and 2215 of 2009 Date:24th December, 2010 CRP Nos.1949 and 2215 of 2009: Between: 1. Manikyam Hanmakka (died ) per L.Rs. & Ors. ..... Petitioners AND 1. Aluri Papa Rao (died) & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1949 and 2215 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the common order, dated 13.03.2009, passed in I.A.Nos.158 and 159 of 2009 in A.S.No.14 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the applications filed under Order 11, Rules 11 to 15 and Sec.151 CPC and under Order 26, Rule 9 and Secs.75 and 151 CPC 2. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.5 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Jude, Wanaparthy. They filed the suit for declaration that the defendants are not having any right to pass through their land and consequential permanent injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit on full pledged trial, by judgment dated 04.05.2006. The petitioners filed A.S.No.14 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal, assailing the judgment and decree, dated 04.05.2006, passed in O.S.No.5 of 2003. Pending the appeal, they moved two applications being I.A.Nos.158 and 159 of 2009. The relief sought for in the said applications read as hereunder: “I.A.No.158 of 2009: For the reasons mentioned in the accompany affidavit, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.2 to 5 to produce the land acquisition proceedings with regard to the acquisition of land for the purpose of laying of RDS channel through suit land and the plans and other records prepared for laying the said channel today or any subsequent date of adjournments, in the interests of justice.” “I.A.No.159 of 2009: For the reasons mentioned in the accompanying affidavit, it is prayed that this Honourable Court may be pleased to redirect the Advocate Commissioner appointed in I.A.No.409 of 2004 in O.S.No.5 of 2003 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, to inspect the suit site along with Mandal Surveyor or in the light of the records namely Land Acquisition Proceedings with regard to the acquiring of land for laying of the said RDS Channel through the suit site and plans and other records prepared at the time of laying the said Channel available with R.2 to R.5 herein and to submit his comprehensive report, in the interests of justice.” The lower appellate Court, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss both the applications, by a common order dated 13.03.2009. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the common order challenged in these two revisions, which reads as hereunder: “Before the trial court, in pursuance of I.A.No.409/04 filed by the petitioners/appellants, an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed with a direction to inspect the rastha in the defendants land from Waddepalli to Budamarsu and note whether there is any rashta in the plaintiffs land to D-1 to D-3 lands. The Advocate-Commissioner filed Ex.C-2 report. The parties filed objections to Ex.C-2 and the Advocate –Commissioner was cross-examined as CW-1. The trial court dismissed the suit by judgment dt.4-5-06. The Advocate- Commissioner in fact filed his report as long back as on 27-6-05 and it appears no appeal/revision was preferred against hat report. Similarly no appeal/revision was preferred against the warrant of commission Ex.C-1 challenging the manner in which it was ordered though the warrant was ordered on 27-12-04. This appeal was preferred in the year 2006. This is all one aspect pointing out the laches on the part of the petitioners/appellants. 5. Coming to the merits of the petitions, the petitioners/appellants made no efforts whatsoever to obtain certified copies of land acquisition proceedings. Without first making such efforts they cannot be permitted to seek direction to the Advocate-Commissioner to collect evidence at this stage more particularly when the written statement categorically averred that the field channel and the rastha all along with its bund was dismantled by the petitioners/appellants pursuant to which a complaint was made to the MRO on 20-6-96. The plaintiff categorically averred that there was RDS field channel running in the suit lands belonging to the plaintiffs. The written statement also speaks the same. The purpose for which the petitions are filed is not clear. Further without making efforts for obtaining the certified copies, the petitioners/appellants are trying to procrastinate the matter. There are no merits in the petitions.” Hence, these two revisions by the petitioners. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners made efforts to get the certified copy of the land acquisition proceedings, but their efforts proved to be futile and therefore, they are compelled to move an application before the lower appellate Court seeking directions to the respondents 4 to 6 herein. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the common order impugned in these two revisions. 6. The suit is of the year 1999. The petitioners filed the appeal in the year 2006. They moved the above two applications in the year 2009. Unless the petitioners seek permission to adduce further evidence by invoking Order 41, Rule 27 CPC, no additional evidence can be permitted to be adduced by the petitioners/appellants. Therefore, the lower appellate Court dismissed both the applications filed by the petitioners by giving cogent and convincing reasons. The common order impugned in the revision does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:24th December, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1949 and 2215 of 2009 Date:24th December, 2010