HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 4500 OF 2009 Friday, the Eleventh day of March, Two Thousand and Eleven Between K.Sai Kumari Petitioner AND Mohd. Kasim @ Military Kasim and another Respondents ORDER: The petitioner herein, who is plaintiff in the suit OS No. 94 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, filed the suit against the respondents, seeking mandatory injunction for removal of compound wall that was constructed, marked as ABC, by encroaching ten feet pathway of the plaint schedule property and for removal of the encroachment of second respondent fencing marked as EFG and for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from closing the pathway for the petitioner to the road. The suit was filed in the year 1995. It is stated that after the evidence of both the plaintiff and the defendants was over, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application under Sec. 151 CPC for reopening of the evidence of PW-1 for the limited purpose of marking the sale deed - document No. 3553 of 2006. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, it is stated by the petitioner that the first defendant sold an extent of 116 Sq. yards situated to the western side of the plaint schedule property and when DW-1 was confronted during the course of cross examination about the sale transaction, he has denied the execution of sale deed. Thereafter, he has secured the certified copy of the sale deed and, therefore, making of the said document is essential to prove his case and, therefore, he requested to reopen the case for the limited purpose of marking the said document. The petitioner has not stated as how the said document is relevant to prove his case in seeking mandatory injunction for removal of the compound wall. As absolutely no grounds either warranting reopening of the case or for marking the document are made out, the said application was rightly rejected by the court below. I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah March 11, 2011 MAS