HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4211 OF 2011 Between: K. Manjula W/o K. Madan Mohan Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND K. Jagan Mohan Reddy S/o K. Ramachandra Reddy and one another .....RESPONDENTS ORAL ORDER: Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.407 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar. The suit is filed against the respondents herein for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendants filed their written statement contesting the suit claim. During trial, while the evidence of D.W.1 was going on, the defendants filed I.A.No.1783 of 2010 seeking leave to file certain documents in evidence. The said application was allowed by the Court below by order dated 14.12.2010 and the documents were received subject to proof of relevancy. On 15.12.2010, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1813 of 2010 to recall the order dated 14.12.2010 in I.A.No.1783 of 2010 contending that the documents through D.W.1 were received in the absence of the plaintiff’s counsel. After hearing both the parties, the Court below allowed I.A.No.1813 of 2010 in part making it clear that the documents received pursuant to the order in I.A.No.1783 of 2010 were subject to objection by the plaintiff in addition to the subject of proof and relevancy. The said order passed in I.A.No.1813 of 2010 dated 04.02.2011 is under challenge in this revision petition filed by the plaintiff. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision. Since the documents in question were received subject to objection apart from subject to proof and relevancy, no prejudice can be said to have caused to the plaintiff. Even assuming that the order dated 14.12.2010 in I.A.No.1783 of 2010 is erroneous, the plaintiff/revision petitioner ought to have challenged the same by availing the appropriate remedy as available under law and a mere petition for recalling the said order cannot be maintained under Section 151 of C.P.C. Hence, the interference by this Court is not warranted and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ JUSTICE G. ROHINI DATE: 16.11.2011 KA/KLP ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.