THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1731, 3502 & 3506 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: 1 Since the parties in all these revisions are common and since all the revisions arise out of the orders dated 16.03.2011 passed in the interlocutory applications in the same suit i.e. O.S.No.4 of 1998 pending on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2 The petitioners are defendants 1 to 3 in the aforesaid suit. Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of ownership and possession in respect of the suit schedule property admeasuring Ac.10-04 guntas in Sy.No.184/B situated at Chennamupparam village of Nellikudur Mandal, and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiff over the said property. 3 In the suit, evidence was completed. When the matter is coming up for arguments, it was reopened at the instance of the plaintiff for further examination of P.W.1 and also to receive certain documents by condoning the delay. The said application was allowed and certain documents relating to the above said land were filed. Thereafter, the petitioners/defendants have filed these three applications. I.A.No.400 of 2010 is filed to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of recording further chief examination for marking some documents on their behalf, I.A.No.401 of 2010 is filed to condone the delay in filing such documents which are filed along with the application and I.A.No.35 of 2011 is also filed to condone the delay in filing some other documents which are filed along with the said application. The Court below dismissed all the above three applications mainly on the ground that the District Collector and the Revenue Divisional Officer were also parties to the suit and the documents are prepared at the instance of the parties to the suit during the pendency of the suit, and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to file the documents by recalling D.W.1. 4 In this case, it is to be noticed that the documents, which are sought to be filed, are issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer even prior to the filing of the suit. When an order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer is not implemented, at the request of the petitioners, further proceedings are issued during the pendency of the suit. It is not in dispute that all the documents are prepared under the Record of Rights Act and they relate to the said land in question. 5 From a perusal of the order passed by the Court below, it is clear that though the revenue authorities are parties to the suit itself, they have not turned up for cross examination after filing the affidavit in lieu of their chief examination and as they did not turn up, their evidence was also eschewed. It is also to be noticed that after the evidence was closed, the plaintiff filed some documents by recalling P.W.1. It is the case of the petitioners/defendants that such documents were issued contrary to the earlier orders issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer and in view of the representation filed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, the subsequent documents were issued in implementation of the earlier order, which was passed earlier to the filing of the suit. In this case, it is to be noticed that the documents which are proposed to be filed by recalling D.W.1 are the documents which are issued consequent to the earlier orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer, which order is prior to the fling of the suit. The petitioners have taken such a plea only to show that the documents, which are subsequently filed by the respondent/plaintiff, are contrary to the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer. While it is true that the documents are issued during the pendnecy of the suit, but, the relevancy of the documents to substantiate their plea in the suit, is a matter to be considered at the time of disposal of the suit by recording findings on the issues involved in the suit. Merely because the documents are issued during the pendency of the suit, they cannot be rejected in limini without looking into such documents. It is also to be noticed that the suit is not only for injunction simplicitor, but, is also for declaration of ownership and possession over the land in question. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that to put a quietus to the litigation and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings it is a fit case to allow the petitioners/defendants to file such documents by condoning the delay and by recalling D.W.1. 6 For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders, dated 16.03.2011, passed in I.A.Nos.400/2010, 401/2010 and 35/2011 in O.S.No.4 of 1998 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, are hereby set aside and consequently, the said I.As shall stand allowed. However, it is made clear that since the suit is of the year 1998, the examination of D.W.1 and marking of the documents shall be done on only one day before the Court below and complete their evidence without taking further time on any ground. 7 Subject to the above directions, all these revision petitions are allowed. No order as to costs. -------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 28.11.2011 C.C. in one week B/o Kvsn