THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NOS.3994 AND 3689 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER DT: 8-11-2011 C.R.P.NO.3994 OF 2011 BETWEEN: R.SOMA SEKHAR .. PETITIONER AND R.VENKATA SUBAMMA .. RESPONDENT C.R.P.NO.3689 OF 2011 BETWEEN: R.SOMA SEKHAR .. PETITIONER AND R.VENKATA SUBAMMA .. RESPONDENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NOS.3994 AND 3689 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER These two revisions are directed against the order passed on interlocutory applications in O.S.No.25 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kamalapuram, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the applications filed by the defendant for reopening and for summoning the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamalapuram. The back ground facts in a nutshell leading to filing of these two revisions by the defendant are: The respondent is the plaintiff and whereas the petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.25 of 2005. The evidence in the suit came to be closed in the year 2007. Subsequently the respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. to reopen the suit and send Ex.B.1, will, to Nasik Printing Press to ascertain the date of issue of the stamps. Initially the said application ended in dismissal and thereafter the plaintiff carried the matter in a revision and the said revision came to be allowed. Ex.B.1 was examined by the Nasik Printing Press and a report also came to be submitted to the court. Evidence came to be closed and thereafter the case stood posted for arguments. The petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.100 of 2011 under section 151 of CPC to reopen the suit for the purpose of examining the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamalapuram and another I.A.No.101 of 2011 under Order 16 Rule 7 r/w section 151 of CPC to permit him to summon the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamalapuram. Both the applications ended in dismissal on 4.7.2011. Hence, these two revisions. More precisely, C.R.P.No.3689 of 2011 is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.101 of 2011 and whereas C.R.P.No.3994 of 2011 is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.100 of 2011. Notice before admission came to be ordered in C.R.P.No.3689 of 2011 on 12.9.2011 and whereas notice before admission came to be ordered in C.R.P.No.3994 on 29.9.2011. The respondent entered appearance through a counsel. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not move the application to summon the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamalapuram prior to the closure of evidence because of the pendency of the matter for receipt of the report from Nasik Printing Press. A further submission has been made that the evidence of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamalapuram is essential to prove the genuineness of Exs.A1, A2, A4, A5 and A8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the orders impugned in the revisions. It is a matter of record that after receipt of the report from Nasik Printing Press, the evidence came to be closed and the case stood posted for arguments. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the petitions. No reasons are stated in the affidavit as to why steps to summon the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kamalapuram could not be taken prior to closing the evidence on his behalf. In the absence of any reasons, the trial court is justified in dismissing the application. I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, these two Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. Dated: 8.11.2011. ( B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J ) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.NOS.3994 AND 3689 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER DT: 8-11-2011 tnb