IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3704, 3739, 3894 & 3902 of 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3704 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: Smt. K.Bharathi, W/o. P.Eswar, R/o. H.No. 4-297, Balaji Nagar, Greenspet, Chittoor Town & District. ..... PETITIONER AND P. Eswar, S/o. P.Veeraswami Naidu, R/o. 18-1-480, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHARAD SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . Form-NIC-OGS/CRP{GMS} CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3739 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: Smt. K.Bharathi, W/o. P.Eswar, R/o. H.No. 4-297, Balaji Nagar, Greenspet, Chittoor Town& District. ..... PETITIONER AND P.Eswar, S/o.P.Veeraswami Naidu, R/o. 18-1-480, Bhavani Nagar, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHARAD SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . Form-NIC-OGS/CRP{GMS} CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3894 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHARAD SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . Form-NIC-OGS/CRP{ } CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3902 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: ..... PETITIONER AND .....RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SHARAD SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/CRP{ } THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3704, 3739, 3894 & 3902 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: All these four Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner herein who is the wife of the respondent herein against the common order in I.A.Nos.68, 69, 70 and 82 of 2009 in O.P.66/2003 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor. The said four I.As are filed to reopen the case and to receive the documents, to recall PW 1 for further cross examination, to condone delay in filing certified copy of the decree in O.S.30/2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur and to permit the petitioner herein to examine her brother as a witness on her behalf. The said O.P.66/2003 was filed by the respondent herein on the file of the Principle Senior Civil Judge, Chittoor for dissolution of marriage with the petitioner herein. The said O.P. was filed in June 2003 in which a counter has been filed by the petitioner herein in October 2003. Thereafter, the evidence was adduced on both sides and when the matter was posted for arguments in 2009 the said four applications have been filed in March and April 2009. Opposing the said applications, counters have been filed by the respondent herein. After hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed all the four applications by a common order dated 22.06.2009. Aggrieved by the same, these four civil revision petitions have been filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below erroneously dismissed all the four applications without giving any reasonable opportunity for reopening and recalling PW 1 for further cross examination and also to examine her brother and file the copy of the decree in O.S.30/2003 dated 30.11.2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Puttur. The Court below elaborately considered the rival contentions of both the parties while dismissing the applications. A perusal of the impugned order goes to show that after closing the evidence, the matter was posted for arguments and even after the arguments, the petitioner herein filed an application for reopening the matter which was dismissed on 01.12.2008 and this is the second application for reopening the case. On 19.03.2009 arguments on both sides in the main O.P. were completed and reply arguments were also advanced on behalf of the respondent herein who is the petitioner in the O.P. and after taking adjournment on 24.03.2009 the petitioner filed all these applications one after another on 26.03.2009, 13.04.2009 and 16.04.2009. As already one of the applications filed earlier to reopen the matter was dismissed, therefore, I am of the opinion that there cannot be any bona fides on the part of the petitioner herein in filing the aforesaid four applications. The Court below having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case rightly dismissed all the four applications. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the said impugned common order. These four Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 21.08.2009 Dsr