THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2655, 2775 and 2856 of 2010 (Dated : 04-10-2010) C.R.P.No.2655 of 2010 Between: Mallu Venkat Reddy S/o Shambi Reddy and others …Petitioners A n d Mallu Veera Reddy, since died per LRs. Mallu Venkat Reddy and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2655, 2775 and 2856 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These three revisions are directed against the common order dated 10.6.2010 passed in I.A.Nos.245 of 2010, 246 of 2010 and 247 of 2010 in O.S.No.144 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. 2. The petitioners are defendants 2 to 5 in the suit and whereas the respondents 1 to 7 are the plaintiffs in the said suit. The plaintiffs filed the suit for injunction in respect of Ac.1-06 guntas in Survey No.636/Vu situated at Srirangapuram village. Both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings. When the case was coming up for submitting arguments on behalf of the defendants, defendants 2 to 5 filed three applications, being I.A.No.245 of 2010 to reopen the suit for the purpose of marking documents; I.A.No.246 of 2010 to receive documents and I.A.No.247 of 2010 to recall Dw-3 for the purpose of marking the documents. 3. The plaintiffs resisted the applications. 4. The learned Junior Civil Judge, by a common order dated 10.6.2010, dismissed all the applications. 5. Paragraph 6 of the order needs to be noted and it reads as hereunder:- “ Admittedly, all the three petitions are filed during the course of arguments of the petitioners/defendants. As seen from the record, Pw-4 was cross-examined long back and for the reasons best known to the petitioners they did not move their little finger till advancing arguments and only while the suit is coming up for further arguments of the petitioners herein, they came up with the present petitions. Thus, the petitions are filed only to gain time apart from the fact that they are belated petitions. As already stated above, petitioners failed to show as to how those documents are relevant for the purpose of this suit so as to enable tem to reopen the suit at the stage of arguments. For all these reasons this Court finds no grounds, much less bona fide grounds on the part of the petitioners, to reopen the suit, to receive the documents and to recall Dw.3, and, therefore, all the petitions are liable to be dismissed”. Hence, these revisions. 6. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 25.6.2010 and 16.7.2010 respectively. Respondents 1 to 7 entered appearance through a counsel. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that Veera Reddy filed O.S.No.232 of 1998 seeking permanent injunction in respect of Ac.1-38 guntas and subsequently, he restricted his claim to Ac.0-30 guntas only, and therefore, Veera Reddy cannot claim more than Ac.0-30 guntas. In a way, his contention is that Veera Reddy got Ac.1-06 guntas in the partition and out of Ac.1-06 guntas, part of the land has been acquired by the Government and the total extent retained by him is only Ac.0-30 guntas. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the petitioners came to know of these facts after submitting their arguments in part before the trial Court and immediately, they secured the certified copies of the documents in O.S.No.232 of 1998 and filed the above applications, and therefore, there are no laches on the part of the petitioners. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 7 supported the order impugned in the revisions. 10. Copies of the written statements filed by the defendants have been placed before me. The petitioners-defendants have not pleaded in the written statement that Veera Reddy got Ac.1-06 guntas in the partition and out of it, the Government acquired part of the land and Veera Reddy retained Ac.0-30 guntas. In the absence of specific pleading, any amount of evidence is of no avail. Therefore, the order passed by the trial Court does not warrant interference in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Accordingly, all the revisions are dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.04-10-2010 Note:- Issue CC in a week (B/o) RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2655, 2775 and 2856 of 2010 (Dated : 04-10-2010)