IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.3453 & 3454 of 2009 Between: Pabba Shivakoti ..... PETITIONER AND 1.Ch.Venkatram Reddy and 8 others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.Radha Krishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: MR.Bankatlal Mandhani The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed against Common Order, dated 16-07-2009, passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal, in I.A.Nos.825 and 826 of 2009 in O.S.No.65 of 1998. In view of the fact that both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a Common Order in two Interlocutory Applications in the same suit and the parties being common, they are heard and disposed of together. The facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.65 of 1998, pending on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Warangal. The said suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale. It is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that pursuant to execution of the said agreement of sale, possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to him on 30-04-1996. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents-defendants that possession of the suit schedule property was not delivered to the petitioner-plaintiff as alleged by him. In support thereof, the respondents-defendants adduced Ex.B.5-Demand Notice issued by the Inspector of Factories to one Kothapalli Bikshapathi, during the course of DW.5’s evidence in the suit. The defendants’ side evidence was closed as early as on 24th October, 2008. Eight (8) months thereafter, the petitioner-plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.825 and 826 of 2009 seeking to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence and to summon the Inspector of Factories, Warangal, to produce the record. By the impugned order, the Court below rejected the said applications. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petitions. In these Civil Revision Petitions, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff that inasmuch as Ex.B.5-Demand Notice was not issued on the basis of records, it is necessary to summon the Inspector of Factories to prove the petitioner’s case that possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to him on 30-04-1996. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants that inasmuch as it is the case of the petitioner-plaintiff that pursuant to execution of the agreement of sale, possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to him on 30-04- 1996, if the said agreement of sale is proved, he is entitled to succeed in the suit. It is further submitted that the possession, which was, allegedly, delivered on 30-04-1996 is insignificant aspect to decide the main issues in the suit. Having regard to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it is to be noted that Ex.B.5 was marked during the course of DW.5’s evidence, which was closed on 24-10-2008. IA.Nos.825 and 826 of 2009 were filed in the month of July, 2009, nearly eight months after closure of the defendants’ side evidence. In any event, if the petitioner-plaintiff believes that he was given possession of the suit schedule property on 30-04-1996, it is for him to prove the same by producing necessary evidence. Mere marking of Ex.B.5-demand notice on behalf of the defendants is not a ground to summon the Labour Inspector at this point of time. In view of the reasons assigned by the Court below, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. ___________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) 10th August, 2009 lur