THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP Nos.3387, 3388 and 3389 of 2011 Date:19.09.2011 Between: Pathapati Lakshmi Narasamma, Srinivasapuram, Gopalavaram Panchyath, Proddatur Mandal, Kadapa (YSR) District and others. ………...Petitioners. And Pathapati Penchal Reddy, Bollavaram, Proddatur Town and Mandal, Kadapa District and another. …… Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CRP Nos.3387, 3388 & 3389 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: 1. These three revisions are filed by the defendants in O.S.No.414 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa (YSR) District assailing the interlocutory orders passed therein. 2. More precisely, CRP No.3387 of 2011 is filed against the order dated 26-07-2011 passed in I.A.No.611 of 2011 in O.S.No.414 of 2006, CRP No.3388 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 26-7-2011 passed in I.A.No.612 of 2011 and CRP No.3389 of 2011 is directed against the order dated 26-7-2011 passed in I.A.No.613 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur. 3. The petitioners are the defendants 1 to 3 and whereas the 1st respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.414 of 2006. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title in respect of suit schedule property. The plaintiff pleaded that he is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property, which is an agricultural land. The petitioners/ defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement resisting the claim of the plaintiff. Para No.7 of the written statement needs to be noted and it is thus:- “It is further submitted that the suit schedule property and other properties purchased by the father of this defendant are unfit for cultivation and useful only for house site. At any point of time no crop raised in the suit schedule land for the past 20 years. As the value of the suit schedule land had been increased enormously, the plaintiff bore grudge against the family of the defendant particularly after the death of the father of this defendant and got filed this suit. This defendant and defendants 1 and 3 on coming to know the obtaining of pattadar pass book by the plaintiff rushed to the Mandal Revenue Officer Proddatur seeking for cancellation of the pattadar pass book obtained by the plaintiff by suppressing the material facts before the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities issued notices to the both parities for conducting the enquiry.” 4. The trial Court settled the issues and thereupon both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. When the suit was coming up for arguments, the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 filed three applications i.e., one to reopen the suit and the other to recall D.W.1 and the third one to receive the additional documents. The document sought to be received an additional evidence are:- (1) Encumbrance Certificate for the period 31.01.1979 to 5.6.2009 (Xerox Copy); (2) Pass book of Rayalaseema Farmers Service Co-operative Society Limited, Lingapuram in favour of Pathapati Obula Reddy. 5. The 1st petitioner-Defendant No.1 has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of all the interlocutory applications. It is suffice to refer the affidavit filed in support of the application i.e., I.A.No.613 of 2011 filed under Order VIII, Rule 1 (3) of C.P.C seeking to receive the petition schedule documents. 6. Para No.2 of the affidavit needs to be noted and it is thus:- “I submit that the suit was posted on 25-07- 2011 for arguments. I submit that we intended to file some records in this suit which referred in Petition schedule. Those are not found with me at the time of my examination. To day I secured them and filed those along with this document petition. The delay in filing those documents are not intentional and willful. So, it is essential to receive those documents to mark them on our side to prove our case. If the same was done there will be no loss to the respondents. If not done we will be put to serious loss and damage.” 7. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed counters resisting the applications. 8. The learned 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 petitioners have not offered any reasons for granting leave to file the documents when the case is at the stage of arguments and thereby proceeded to dismiss the applications by order dated 26.7.2011. Hence these revisions by the defendants 1 to 3. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 submits that late Obul Reddy raised loan from the Rayalaseema Farmers Service Co- operative Society Limited, Lingapuram and it establishes the ownership of late Obul Reddy and therefore, the said document is essential to substantiate the claim of the petitioners and contradict the claim made by the 1st respondent/plaintiff over the suit schedule property. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits that the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 have not pleaded in the written statement that late Obul Reddy raised loan from Rayalaseema Farmers Service Co-operative Society Limited, Lingapuram and instead the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 specifically pleaded in the written statement that the land is not an agricultural land and in which case, permitting the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 to place on record the additional documents at this distant of time would cause much prejudice to the case of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/plaintiff placed on record their written statement. The relevant portion of the written statement has already been extracted supra. The defendants have not pleaded in the written statement that Obul Reddy raised loan from Rayalaseema Farmers Service Co- operative Society Limited, Lingapuram basing on his title or possession over the suit schedule property. Without there being any pleading to that effect receiving the documents at the belated stage definitely causes much prejudice to the case of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. No reason has been assigned by the petitioners/defendants 1 to 3 for not securing the documents before the commencement of trial. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and refused to receive the documents. 12. In that view of the matter, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the orders impugned in the revisions warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. Accordingly, these Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. ________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:19.09.2011 mrb