THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.3342 of 2009 Date: 15-10-2009 Between 1. Mupperisetti Nancharamma and 2 others … Petitioners/ Petitioners/Defendants and 1. Mupperisetti Chittamma (Died) 2. Gantisetti Siva Rama Krishna … Respondents/Plaintiffs 3. Gantisetti Uma Maheswari and 3 others … Respondents/Defendants 4 to 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.3342 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard Sri K.Venkateshwarlu, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the common order and decretal order, dated 14-7-2009, passed by the I Additional District Judge, FAC/VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Machilipatnam, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.84 of 2009 in O.S.No.12 of 2002 (along with I.A.Nos.85 and 86 of 2009), filed under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the matter to recall D.W.1 for marking certain document as additional evidence. 3. The petitioners herein are defendants 1 to 3; respondent No.1 is the deceased original plaintiff (No.1); respondent No.2 is plaintiff No.2; and respondents 3 to 6 are defendants 4 to 7, respectively, in the suit before the Court below. 4. The suit is for partition. The matter was tried, arguments were heard and the suit is posted for judgment. At that stage, the present interlocutory application came to be filed on the ground that the document sought to be received by the Court is a link document. 5. From a perusal of the impugned common order (insofar as the present application), it appears that the only reason shown by the petitioners in the affidavit filed in support of the present interlocutory application was that due to oversight, the said document, which is styled as ‘link document’ could not be filed. The said reasoning cannot be accepted at this belated stage, particularly when the matter is posted for judgment. 6. Law is settled that when once the matter is heard and is reserved for judgment, the trial had come to an end and after trial had come to an end, it is not desirable for the Court to entertain any further interlocutory applications, which would only give leverage to the litigants to make their efforts to protract the litigation further. That apart, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of challenging the present impugned order under Section 105 of CPC in any eventuality. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the impugned common order insofar as it relates to the application I.A.No.84 of 2009. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 15th October, 2009. Ak