IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5404 AND 5407 OF 2009 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5404 OF 2009: Between: Thalari Mandla Subbaiah, S/o. Naganna and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Boya Pedda Madduleti (died) and others ....RESPONDENTS CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5407 OF 2009: Between: Thalari Mandla Subbaiah, S/o. Naganna and others ..... PETITIONERS AND Boya Pedda Madduleti (died) and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5404 AND 5407 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.5404 of 2009 is filed against the order, dated 20.10.2009, made in I.A.No.420 of 2009 in O.S.No.30 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. Likewise, C.R.P.No.5407 of 2009 is filed against the order, dated 20.10.2009, in I.A.No.419 of 2009 in O.S.No.30 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda. 2. These applications had been filed to reopen the petitioners’ side evidence and also for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. 3. In the light of the reasons recorded in I.A.No.420 of 2009 in detail, the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss these applications and aggrieved by the same, these civil revision petitions have been preferred. 4. The learned counsel on record made certain submissions taking this Court through the relevant stands taken by the parties and would maintain that the learned Senior Civil Judge, Allagadda, had not appreciated the questions involved, while deciding these applications, in proper perspective. 5. The learned Judge in fact while recording reasons observed as hereunder: “As a matter of fact, the petitioners caused sufficient delay in the trial of the suit, which is nearly for one year or more, and in spite of that they are again trying to cause some more procrastination in the way of disposal of the suit by filing the present petition. On a holistic observation of the facts apparently evident form the record, it is abundantly clear that the petitioners are motivated to delay and procrastinate the trial for some reason or the other and with that view they again filed the present petition without any real purpose to be served. Anyhow, there are no merits in the present petition filed by the petitioners, as there is no such a need to appoint a commissioner as sought for by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petition is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the petition is dismissed with costs.” 6. In the light of the elaborate reasons recorded in I.A.No.420 of 2009, the other aforesaid application had also been dismissed. 7. In the light of the convincing reasons recorded by the learned Judge, this Court is satisfied that these are not fit matters to be interfered with, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J February 02, 2010 MD