HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4298 and 4504 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.1735 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, against the respondents for the relief of mandatory injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. The petitioner on the one hand and the respondents on the other have adduced oral and documentary evidence. The suit was coming up for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1465 and 1466 of 2009 with a prayer to reopen the suit and to summon the Mandal Surveyor, Kallur, to produce survey report. The respondents opposed the applications. Through common order, dated 22.08.2009, the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, dismissed the applications. Hence, these two revisions. Sri K.V.Raghuveer, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that necessity for the petitioner to file these applications has arisen on account of certain statements made by the witnesses examined by the respondents. He contends that summoning of the record from the office of the Mandal Revenue Office would be helpful in effective adjudication of the suit. Sri V. Venu Gopala Rao, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the parties have adduced their evidence touching on the issue and the present applications are filed with a view to delay the disposal of the suit. He contends that the purpose for which the I.As., was filed is totally outside the scope of the suit. As observed earlier, the suit was filed for the relief of mandatory injunction. The petitioner has already adduced the evidence touching the averments in the plaint and made an effort to substantiate his case. Respondents, on the other hand, adduced oral and documentary evidence resisting the plea of the petitioner. Now, the matter is at the stage of arguments. The effort of the petitioner is to bring on record a report said to have been prepared by the Mandal Surveyor. Left to himself, he did not feel the necessity of bringing that report on record. If it was so much relevant, he could have obtained a certified copy thereof and file in the course of his evidence. If for any reason the report was not available, he could have undertaken such exercise while adducing evidence on his behalf. He did neither. Further, in a suit for mandatory injunction, the petitioner does not have to depend upon the observation made by the Mandal Surveyor, who is not a party to the suit. The trial Court has taken correct view and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date: 03.12.2010 sj