IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2330 OF 2008 Between: K.Bichaiah ......petitioner AND K.Chandraiah and 4 others ......Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2330 OF 2008 ORDER: The 1st respondent in O.P.No.2 of 2006 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Zaheerabad has approached this Court by the present civil revision petition questioning the docket order of the learned Magistrate dated 05.06.2008 framing issues. The petitioner states that while the said docket order was passed after noticing the decision of this Court in Lagudu Anuradha vs. Chellayamma and others [1], the learned Magistrate has suo motu reopened the case and as there were no issues settled, has framed issues 1 to 4 and recorded that since already evidence is adduced by both sides on the above issues and as there is no further evidence on the part of the original petitioner (respondent No.1 herein), the O.P. was posted for evidence of respondents 1, 3 to 5 in O.P. i.e., the revision petitioner and the official respondents 3 to 5 herein, if any. The said order is questioned in the revision petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner states that at the fag end of the O.P. when the arguments are advanced the Court below ought not to have reopened the O.P. without there being any application and could not have framed the issues. I am not unable to accept the said contention inasmuch as the decision of this Court quoted above was seen by the learned Magistrate and the irregularity of ought not framing issues was rectified by framing the issues. Further, the learned Magistrate has already recorded that the both sides have lead evidence on all the aforesaid issues and the original petitioner specifically stated that he has no further evidence. The learned Magistrate therefore gave opportunity to the revision petitioner as well as official respondents 3 to 5 herein to adduce further evidence, if any. Obviously they also do not have any further evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision was filed and the O.P. remained pending till now. I am of the view that the revision petition is clearly misconceived, as the Court had the jurisdiction to frame necessary issues of law of fact, any time, after or during the hearing. The order impugned does not suffer from any serious irregularity and as such, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no interference with the said order is warranted. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. The trial Court is directed to consider and dispose of the O.P. expeditiously within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. ______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 17.06.2010 Ivd [1] 2004 (3) ALD 610.