IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5413, 5442 and 5280 of 2006 Between: Kasireddy Lakshmi. … Petitioner in all the C.R.Ps. And Bodikurthy Surya Nageswara Rao. … Respondent in all the C.R.Ps. This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos 5413, 5442 and 5280 OF 2006 COMMON ORDER:- These three revisions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, arise out of the same suit against the docket orders of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pitapuram dated 13.10.2006 dismissing I.A.No.831 of 2006 filed to reopen the suit; I.A.No.832 of 2006 filed to recall the evidence of D.W.1 and I.A.No.833 of 2006 to receive the registration extract of the sale deed dated 13.10.1948 and the original pattadar passbook issued in the name of the petitioner/ defendant’s father, while condoning the delay in filing the documents and to mark them as Ex.B12 and Ex.B13. The respondent/plaintiff instituted the above suit for declaration to declare the document No.2984 of 2002, dated 29.11.2002 executed by Suryakantham, who has no right to alienate the plaint schedule property in favour of anybody much less in favour of the defendant, as invalid and not binding on the defendant. Since the title is already vested with the plaintiff and only possession is postponed, Suryakantham has no right to settle the document, which is sought to be invalidated. Pending the suit, defendant filed the above three I.As., contending that the plaintiff is relying upon Ex.A1- registered settlement deed, dated 20.06.1967, settling the property in favour of the plaintiff and he is relying upon Ex.A2-settlement deed, dated 29.11.2002 executed in his favour, which is sought to be declared as invalid and inoperative. Since the title of Suryakantham to execute the said settlement deed emanated on 13.10.1948, which is now sought to be marked by the defendant, the same should be marked in evidence. The trial court simply dismissed the I.As on the ground that the suit is filed for permanent injunction and it has to be noted whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and the remaining questions are ancillary to the same and, therefore, there is no necessity to receive the documents by reopening and recalling the witness. Obviously, the trial court committed an error in dismissing the I.As., on the ground that the suit is simplicitor for permanent injunction, contrary to the relief of declaration actually claimed by the plaintiff. In view of the same, the impugned orders passed by the trial court are set aside and the I.As., are allowed as prayed for. Accordingly, all the civil revision petitions are allowed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 5TH February 2010 lmv