THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.5139 and 5405 of 2009 Dated:11th November, 2009 Between: Vutukuri Jaya Parvathi …Petitioner (in both CRPs) and 1. Gatta Mallikarjuna Rao & Ors. …Respondents (in both CRPs) *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.5139 and 5405 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are directed against the common order, dated 08.09.2009, passed in I.A.Nos.1056 and 1057 of 2009 in O.S.No.26 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, Prakasam District. More precisely, C.R.P.No.5139 of 2009 is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1056 of 2009 and C.R.P.No.5405 of 2009 is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.1057 of 2009. 2. Since the issue involved in both the revisions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common Order. 3. The petitioner is the 5th defendant in O.S.No.26 of 2006. She got herself examined as DW.3 and thereafter, closed evidence on her behalf. Subsequently, she filed I.A.No.1056 of 2009 to reopen the case for further evidence on her behalf and I.A.No.1057 of 2009 to recall herself, who has been examined as DW.3, for further examination. In the affidavit filed in support of the recall petition, it is stated that her deposition in MC.No.1 of 2004 is required to be marked in tota and therefore, she is to be further examined. It is further stated in the affidavit that some mistakes have been crept in while recording her deposition and therefore, he is required to be further examined to clarify the mistakes. For better appreciation, I may refer the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.1056 of 2009, which reads as hereunder: “I, Vutukuri Jaya Parvathi, W/o.Lava Kumar, age 45 years, Hindu, house-wife, R/o.Rama Krishna Puram, Chirala, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows: I submit that the plaintiff filed suit for partition against me and others with false allegations. I filed my written statement and contesting the suit. I filed my chief examination as DW.3. In my cross examination I deposed ‘item No.2 of the schedule property was given to me as gift by the defendants 1 to 4 and the mother of 6 to 8”, but wrongly recorded plaintiff also. And I deposed that “2 years after the death of my father the tiled house was collapsed itself”, but wrongly recorded as demolished. A portion of my deposition at M.C.1/2004 was marked as Ex.A.1, but there are some other sentences are also important which is necessary to prove my case. Hence, I request you, please, mark the entire document on my behalf to prove my case. I have got fair chances to succeed in the above suit, under the above circumstances, it is just and necessary to reopen and recall in above suit for the purpose of to give evidence on my side. It is therefore prays that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to reopen and recall and permit me in the above suit for the purpose to hear on my side, otherwise I will be put irreparable loss.” The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground to reopen and to recall of DW.3 fo further examination and thereby proceeded to dismiss the two petitions, by a common order dated 08.09.2009. Hence, these two revisions by the petitioner/5th defendant. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/5th defendant and perused the material brought on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/5th defendant submits that some discrepancies have crept in while recording the evidence of DW.3 and therefore, she is required to be recalled for clarification. 6. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of both the petitions. The affidavits are silent as to on which date she has examined and after how many days she came to know of the mistakes crept in her deposition. In the absence of any such particulars, the common order passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge cannot be found fault. 7. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:11th November, 2009. CS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.5139 and 5405 of 2009 Dated:11th November, 2009