THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.1008 of 2011 ORDER: This revision petition has been filed aggrieved by order dated 31.12.2010 passed in I.A. No.122 of 2010 in O.S. No.43 of 2005 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jagtial. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S. No.43 of 2005 being filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for injunction to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs also filed I.A. No.122 of 2010 under Order VII Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to the Court below to receive the rejoinder. The said application was allowed by the Court below on 31.12.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner/defendant filed the present revision petition. The suit is of the year 2005 and the written statement was filed and the issues were framed. Five years thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.122 of 2010 seeking to receive the rejoinder on the ground that the revision petitioner/defendant has pleaded in his written statement that he obtained the decree in his favour in O.S. No.17 of 1976, the said decree was set aside in appeal A.S. No.17 of 1984 and the said fact was not stated in the written statement of the revision petitioner/defendant. Hence, by way of rejoinder to the written statement, an application in I.A. No.122 of 2010 was filed. The Court below has allowed the said application on the ground that in the instant caste, only issues were framed and the plaintiff’s side evidence is not yet commenced. Therefore, if the plaintiffs are permitted to file the rejoinder the revision petitioner/defendant would also get an opportunity of cross examining the witnesses of the respondents/plaintiffs and also would be having an opportunity to lead his evidence in rebuttal thereof. No doubt, in the instant case, the revision petitioner/defendant filed his written statement on 02.12.2005 and after almost five years, the rejoinder came to be filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. To this contention, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that he came on record in the present suit only recently and when the case was posted for trial he immediately fled the rejoinder. Considering the contentions of both the counsel and having regard to the nature of the relief sought for in the said application and the relief granted by the Court below, this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner/defendant by the impugned order. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 07.06.2011 LSK