THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. Nos. 58 and 59 of 2011 Dated. 11–02-2011 C.R.P.No. 58 of 2011 Between: Yelisetty Sesha Veni and another. …Petitioners Vs. Korlapati Sitarama Swamy …Respondent C.R.P.No. 59 of 2011 Between: Yelisetty Sesha Veni and another. …Petitioners Vs. Korlapati Sitarama Swamy …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.Nos. 58 and 59 of 2011 ORAL COMMON ORDER: These revisions are misconceived. These are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and are directed against two orders of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, East Godavari Distict, allowing I.A.Nos. 1369 of 2010 and 1368 of 2010 respectively in O.S.No. 9 of 2010. The suit is filed by the respondent- plaintiff for a perpetual injunction claiming illegal trespass by the revision petitioners into the suit schedule property. Therein I.A.No. 1369 of 2010 was filed by the plaintiff under Order-VIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC) for grant of permission to recall P.W.1 for recording oral and documentary evidence; and I.A.No. 1368 of 2010 under Order-VIII Rule 3 of CPC to permit the petitioner-plaintiff to produce a document which is a rectification deed pertaining to Ex.B.1 dated 24-07-2003. These applications were resisted by the revision petitioners contending that the document now proposed to be marked through P.W.1 on his recall is null and void document; is not relevant to the suit proceedings, as the copy of the sale deed dated 24-07-2003 was already marked as Ex.B.1; and that the alleged rectification deed dated 24-07-2010 cannot be considered as a probative piece of evidence to decide the issues in the suit. The Court below allowed the applications as consideration of the document would enable a fuller adjudication of a suit on merits and in particular the proposed document has come into existence during the pendency of the suit; the same is received by condoning the delay. In these revisions the learned counsel for the petitioners would strenuously contend that the rectification deed has been contrived by the plaintiff to over-reach the evidence already on record and that the said rectification deed ought not to be countenanced as supporting claim of the plaintiff. In substance what the revision petitioners seek in these revisions is to shield the trial Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta from considering of evidence which the plaintiff as a dominus litus considers relevant to his case. The suit is of the year 2010 and there is no abnormal delay on the part of the plaintiff in marshalling evidence though in a suit for bare injunction. There is no reason why the revision petitioners should apprehend that the trial Court will not appreciate their contentions regarding probative value of the document now sought to be marked in the suit and relied on behalf of the plaintiff. On the aforesaid analysis, the revision petitions are fundamentally misconceived as was the opposition to I.A.Nos. 1369 and 1368 of 2010 in O.S.No. 9 of 2010. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 11-02-2011 Pvks/*