HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.2318 of 2011 AND C.R.P.Nos.2763 of 2011 & 2762 of 2011 DATE:08-07-2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2318 OF 2011 BETWEEN Ambula Manoj …Petitioner AND Ambula Bhavana …Respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2763 of 2011 BETWEEN Ambula Manoj …Petitioner AND Ambula Bhavana …Respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2762 of 2011 BETWEEN Ambula Manoj …Petitioner AND Ambula Bhavana …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.2318 of 2011 AND C.R.P.Nos.2763 of 2011 & 2762 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These three revisions are arising out of the same proceedings and therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. Present revisions are filed against the common orders passed by the District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam, dated 13.6.2011, whereby and whereunder I.A.Nos.295, 296 and 297 of 2011 in H.M.O.P.No.343 of 2009 were dismissed. I.A.No.297 of 2011 was filed to examine the minor-Manaswini @ Vaishnavi by interviewing her in order to take her welfare; I.A.No.296 of 2011 was filed to re-open the H.M.O.P. for the purpose of examining the minor-Manaswini @ Vaishnavi and also examine Dr.Maganti Srinivas as a witness for the petitioner; and I.A.No.295 of 2011 was filed to issue summons to Dr.Maganti Srinivas, MD (Pediatrics), Maganti Vydyasala, Children and Skin Diseases Hospital, Eluru Road, Gudivada to give evidence about the treatment given to the minor-Manaswini @ Vaishnavi on 30.3.2008 and also on 31.3.2008 to show that the respondent has neglected relating to the health of the minor. The petitioner herein instituted the above H.M.G.O.P. against his wife-respondent herein to declare him as entitled to the custody of the minor-Manaswini @ Vaishnavi and for taking welfare of the minor. When the O.P. was posted for arguments on 25.4.2011, the impugned I.As. were filed by the petitioner stating that the minor has to be examined to know her interest and also to take the welfare of the said minor as it is the paramount consideration of the minor on which basis custody can be given to the petitioner by reopening the O.P. and also to record the statement of the doctor who treated the minor on the dates mentioned in the petition to prove that the respondent totally neglected to take care of minor. The impugned I.As. were contested by the respondent-wife stating that the minor was already produced and examined by the Court on 07.4.2011 and that the impugned applications were filed only to drag on the proceedings, and that in the absence of any pleading about alleged ill-treatment by the respondent or about the treatment given to the minor by Dr.Maganti Srinivas, the said doctor cannot be examined as a witness. The lower Court by the impugned order observed that the parties completed their evidence on 7.4.2011 and as they reported ready to submit arguments, the matter was taken up for hearing, that as the petitioner was not ready for arguments, the matter was posted to 15.4.2011, on which date, the Presiding Officer was on leave and therefore, the matter was posted to 25.4.2011. On 25.4.2011, the petitioner filed the impugned applications without proceeding with the arguments. In that view of the matter and as the minor was already examined on 07.4.2011, the lower Court was of the view that the impugned applications were filed with a view to protract the matter in spite of the fact that the time granted by the Supreme Court to dispose of the O.P. would expire by 7.5.2011. Further it was observed that in the absence of any record to prove that the minor was treated by Dr.Maganti Srinivas, no purpose would be served by examining him in the case, wherein the custody of the minor will be given after considering the welfare of the minor and observing so, dismissed the impugned applications. Admittedly, the minor was already examined by the Court on 07.4.2011 and then only the matter was posted for arguments. Therefore, once again filing the impugned applications to examine the minor etc. is nothing but to protract the litigation. In view of the same, the impugned orders passed by the lower Court do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revisions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JULY 08, 2011 Tsr.