HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos. 5360/2007 and 329/2008 DT.26-11-2010 CRP No.5360/2007: Chadalavada Chandramma and another. … Petitioners V. 1. A. Venkateswara Reddy and another ..Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos. 5360/2007 and 329/2008 COMMON ORDER: Since the parties in both the revision petitions are one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. CRP No.5360/2007 and CRP No.329/2008 are filed under Art. 227 of the constitution of India by the 2nd defendant in OS No.331/2006 on the file of court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, to revise the orders passed by that Court dt. 16-11-2007 passed in IA No.1480/2007 and IA No.1482/2007 in OS No.331/2006 respectively, whereunder IA No.1480/2007 filed by the 2nd defendant under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC to reopen the suit and to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of marking the documents now produced by her, and IA No.1482/2007 filed to recall D.Ws.1 and 2 for further evidence, have been dismissed respectively. The first respondent herein, who is plaintiff in OS No.331/2006, filed the suit based on the promissory note executed by Ch. Ranga Reddy and his wife Chadalavada Anasuyamma (D1), who are father and mother of D-2 respectively. After evidence was closed and when the matter was posted for arguments, the above two IAs were filed stating that SAOP No.15/2005 on the file of Principal District Judge, Ongole, was filed by Chadalavada Chandramma (petitioner-D-2 herein), against Chadalavada Anasuyamma (1st defendant herein) and another. Chadalavada Anasuyama was examined as R.W.1 in SAOP No.15/2005. During the course of her cross-examination, a suggestion was made to her that in the compromise entered before the elders in the village, she did not accept to withdraw the suit filed at Kanigiri Court by the Vaka Subba Reddy, to compensate that she withdraw the suit on the file of Gudivada Junior Civil Judge Court which is filed by Annem Venkateswara Rao, and it is only to accept that the petitioner withdraw this SAOP No.15/2005 to compensate they withdraw the suit filed in Gudivada Junior Civil Judge’s Court ie., OS No.331/2006. Since the suggestion made was denied, the petitioner wants to prove collusion and filed the above two petitions. Since the evidence of R.W.1 adduced in OP No.15/2005 has no bearing on the present suit and the suggestion made to R.W.1 was denied, no purpose would be served if this court allows the petitions filed, one to reopen the suit and another to recall D.Ws.1 and 2. The impugned orders passed by the trial court do not warrant any interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:26-11-2010 kmr