THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.858 & 1067 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.420 of 2003 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty against the respondents for the relief of perpetual injunction. The trial of the suit started long back and P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined. Thereafter, the evidence on behalf of the respondents was also adduced. In the meanwhile, defendants 3 and 7 in the suit died and their legal representatives were brought on record as defendants 8 to 17. Additional written statements were filed and additional issues were also framed. After these formalities were concluded, the suit was listed for arguments. At that stage, the respondents filed I.A.Nos.1081 and 1082 of 2009 for reopening of the suit and to recall P.Ws.1 and 2. The petitioner opposed those applications. Through a common order dated 18.01.2009 the trial Court allowed the applications. Hence, these two revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Bereft of certain details, the order passed by the trial Court may appear to be a bit extraordinary since it has the effect of reopening of suit, which is ripe for hearing. However, in view of the subsequent developments, namely that legal representatives of certain deceased defendants were brought on record, additional written statements were filed and additional issues were framed, in fact, it becomes necessary that the parties must be given an opportunity to adduce evidence vis-à- vis additional issues. The trial Court has adopted the correct procedure. It has protected the interest of the parties by directing costs. Hence, no interference is warranted. Since the suit is of the year 2003, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same before the Court closes for Summer Vacation. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 17.03.2010 va