IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6305 of 2009 Between: Jagu Indira ... PETITIONER a n d The Chairman and Managing Director, APCPDCL, Singareni Bhavan, Lakdikapul, Hyderabad and others … RESPONDENTS ORDER: This revision has been filed by the plaintiff No.1 in O.S.No.8 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Suryapet, assailing the order dated 17-12-2009 passed in I.A.No.1728 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioners to reopen the suit for further evidence on their behalf ended in dismissal. 2. Notice before admission came to be issued on 22-01-2010. Despite service of notice to respondents 1 to 6, who are the defendants in the suit, they do not chose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel. Respondents 7 and 8 are co-plaintiffs. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and perused the material brought on record. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner along with respondents 7 and 8 filed I.A.S.R.No.3015 of 2009 under Order 26 Rules 6 and 7 r/w.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to summon the documents from the possession of the Chief General Manager (HRD), APCPDCL, Hyderabad in the month of July, 2010. But the learned II Additional District Judge without passing any orders on the said application proceeded to close the evidence and posted the matter for arguments. Thereupon the petitioners filed I.A.No.1728 of 2009 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to enable them to take steps for adducing further evidence. A further submission has made by the learned counsel that the trial Court without taking note of the pendency of the application filed by the petitioners to summon the documents from the APCPDCL proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that they filed application to drag on the matter. 5. Learned counsel refers paragraph Nos.3 to 5 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1728 of 2009 which reads as hereunder: “It is further submitted that though the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 specifically stated in her plaint with regard to her age, the defendants disputed the same and an issue was framed with regard to the limitation taking the date of birth of the petitioner/plaintiff No.1. In this regard, it is respectfully submitted that after institution of the suit, the petitioner was joined with the respondent/defendant No.1 department as Asst. Engineer. That while joining in the office of respondent/ defendant No.1, the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 submitted her original S.S.C. certificate and original physical handicapped certificate. And both the certificates are in the possession of the Chief General Manager, (HRD), Corporate Office, APCPDCL, Hyderabad who is under control of the respondent/ defendant No.1 herein. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioner/plaintiff No.1 made an application to the Chief General Manager, with a request to return the above said documents to enable the petitioner to submit the same before this Hon’ble Court along with required security fee of Rs.20,000-00 but the authorities not returned the said documents though considerable period has been elapsed. It is respectfully submitted that the petitioners/ plaintiffs on the advise have filed an I.A. vide S.R.No.3015 of 2009 with a request to summon the above said documents from the possession of the authorities before conclusion of the plaintiffs evidence. But this Hon’ble Court, kept the said petition pending and the plaintiffs’ evidence was closed and case was posted for defendants’ evidence and now the defendants’ evidence was also closed.” 6. From the above, it is clear that the plaintiffs moved I.A.S.R.No.3015 of 2009 much earlier to the closure of the evidence to summon the document from the possession of the Chief General Manager, HRD, Corporate Office, APCPDCL. The trial Court without passing orders on the said application proceeded to close the case and posted the matter for arguments. Therefore, the order impugned in the Civil Revision Petition dismissing the I.A.No.1728 of 2009 in O.S.No.8 of 2006 cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 17-12-2009 passed in I.A.No.1728 of 2009 in O.S.No.8 of 2006 and consequently I.A.No.1728 of 2009 stands allowed. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J August 18, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6305 of 2009 August 23, 2010