THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU C.R.P.Nos.3007, 3008, 3009 & 3010 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: 1 Since the issue involved in all these revisions is interrelated, all these revisions are disposed of by this common order. 2 CRP Nos.3007 and 3009 of 2011 are directed against the common order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool in I.A.Nos.158 and 244 of 2011 in O.S.No.820 of 2006 filed for recall of P.W.1 for further chief examination and for reopening of the evidence of P.W.1 in the suit respectively. CRP Nos.3008 & 3010 of 2011 are preferred against the orders dated 13.07.2011 in I.A.Nos.239 and 352 of 2011 filed to receive certain documents and mark them on his behalf by condoning the delay. 3 Heard both sides. 4 It is the case of the petitioner who is the plaintiff in the suit that he filed suit against the respondent seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from entering and trespassing into the plaint schedule property; that at the time of filing of the suit, he could not file some documents, as they were not available with him, now he obtained certified copies of those documents and filed them into the court with some delay; hence, for marking the said documents, he has to be recalled and the evidence of P.W.1 has to be reopened. The petitioner also filed I.As.239 and 352 of 2011 praying the court to admit the documents in evidence. 5 The trial court, having observed that the applications filed by the petitioner to reopen the suit and recall P.W.1 for further chief examination and for receiving of documents by condoning the delay will be considered after the evidence of the defendants is over, strangely dismissed those petitions i.e. I.A.Nos.158 and 244 of 2011. The trial court also dismissed the other I.As i.e. I.A.Nos.239 and 352 of 2011 observing that since the petitioner had not preferred any revision against the common order dated 13.06.2011 dismissing the I.A.Nos.158 and 244 of 2011 filed for recall of P.W.1 and reopen the evidence of P.W.1 Instead of dismissing the petitions, the trial court ought to have passed necessary orders on the applications filed by the petitioner herein, after the evidence of the defendants is over. 6 Hence all these revisions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. The trial court is hereby directed to pass appropriate orders on the petitions filed by the petitioner after hearing both sides, after the evidence of the respondents/defendants is completed. No costs. -------------------- K.C. BHANU, J 08.08.2011 Kvsn