HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE G. ROHINI C.R.P. Nos. 2039, 2041 and 2042 of 2011 DATED: 13.06.2011 Between: Miryala Bhanu Gupta .. Petitioner And 1. Miryala Prabhakara Gupta 2. Miryala Kamalakar Gupta 3. Miryala Bhaskara Gupta .. Respondents COMMON ORDER:- The revision petitioner in all the three Revision Petitions is the 1st defendant in O.S. No.191 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. . The suit is filed by the 1st respondent herein for recovery of possession of the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, remained ex parte and the 1st defendant / revision petitioner alone contested the suit. He got himself examined as DW1 and the 2nd defendant was examined as DW2. While the matter was coming up for hearing, the 1st defendant filed I.A. Nos.1387, 1388 and 1389 of 2010 praying the Court to recall DW2 for further examination, to condone the delay and to receive certain documents on his behalf and to reopen the matter for the said purposes. After hearing both the parties, the Court below dismissed all the three applications holding that the applications were not bona fide and it was nothing but an attempt to drag on the suit proceedings. Aggrieved by the said orders passed in I.A. Nos.1387, 1388 and 1389 of 2010,these three revision petitions are filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The material available on record shows that the 2nd defendant, who was examined as DW2, was cross-examined on 07.01.2010. Thereafter, in spite of more than ten adjournments, the 1st defendant did not adduce any further evidence, and therefore, the evidence was closed. The 1st defendant filed I.A. No.132 of 2010 to recall DW1, and the said application was dismissed by the Court below on merits. Despite the same, the 1st defendant filed I.A .No. 672 of 2010 again with the same prayer to recall DW1. The said application was also dismissed by the Court below on merits and the said orders became final. As could be seen from the order under revision, sufficient opportunity was given to the 1st defendant to adduce evidence, and even at the stage of hearing, at the instance of the 1st defendant, the matter underwent about six adjournments. The present applications to reopen the suit and to recall DW2, were therefore, rightly dismissed by the Court below. The discretion exercised by the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the conduct of the 1st defendant, cannot be termed perverse and the orders under revision do not suffer from any legal error warranting interference by this Court. Hence, all the three Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. ________________ G. ROHINI, J 13.06.2011 bcj