THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 2525 of 2009 Between: Muddu Indira Devi W/o. Ravi Shanker R/o. H.No.2-6-17, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda, Warangal. ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Bheemanadula Rajender S/o. Veeraiah R/o. H.No.11-22- 278, Kasibugga, Warangal, and others. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. Subrahmanyam Counsel for Respondents: Sri P. Kesava Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner filed this revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order, dated 30.03.2009 passed in I.A.No.246 of 2009 in O.S.No.200 of 2005 by the V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property consisting of vacant sites admeasuring 450 sq. yds. in Plot Nos.44 and 45 in S.No.126. The respondents have already filed written statement way back in the year 2005 putting forth their defence contending that they are the owners of the site in their own rights by virtue of purchase. In the suit, issues were framed and the trial was also commenced. The plaintiff after filing of chief affidavit on his behalf on 15.02.2008, not attended the Court and since then it has been adjourned for marking of documents. Though the written statement was filed in the year 2005, at no point of time, the petitioner made an attempt to file rejoinder and at this belated stage after commencement of trial, he seeks to file the rejoinder to raise certain objections. Hence, he prays to dismiss the application. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri, P. Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the impugned order passed by the Court below with regard to commencement of trial and further adjournments by considering the application in proper perspective. The impugned order is passed rejecting to grant leave for filing rejoinder. In view of the fact that the trial has already commenced and the chief examination affidavit was also filed as early as on 15.02.2008, any permission for filing rejoinder at this stage will certainly effect the case of the respondents/defendants and cause prejudice to them. In view of the same, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Court below warranting interference of this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J.) 25th August, 2009 Js.