THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 252 of 2011, 254 of 2011 and 288 of 2011 COMMN ORDER: 1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed challenging the Common Order dated 29.11.2010 in I.A. Nos. 691 of 2010, 692 of 2010 and 693 of 2010, all in R.C. No.130 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby petitions filed to receive the document viz. proceedings in panchayat dated 14.7.2003; to reopen the evidence of P.W.2; and to recall P.W.2, were dismissed, on the ground that it was filed at a belated stage. 2. Since all the revisions arise out of common order, they are being taken up for disposal together. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel contends that the said document is necessary to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant, and that the contents of the said document have been confronted with R.W.2 and he denied the same, and therefore, receipt of the document is necessary for proving the case of the petitioners. 5. The petitioners filed the R.C. 130 of 2008 before the court below for eviction of the respondents. The evidence on respondents’ side was closed in the month of July, 2010. The present applications are filed three months thereafter. There must be some explanation for receipt of the document as to how it is prima facie relevant for the purpose of resolving the dispute in controversy. Admittedly, the respondents are not parties to the alleged document, which is now sought to be received. Except stating that the said document is very much crucial and necessary for adjudication of the case, no cogent explanation is forthcoming in the affidavit filed in support of the petition as to why the said document is necessary for resolving the dispute. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the document is necessary to prove the jural relationship of landlord and tenant. But, admittedly, when the respondents are not parties to the document, it cannot be used against them. Considering these aspects, the trial Court rightly dismissed the applications and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 6. The Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 4.2.2011 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU COMMON ORDER in CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 252 of 2011, 254 of 2011 and 288 of 2011 4.2.2011 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 252 of 2011, 254 of 2011 and 288 of 2011 4.2.2011 C.R.P. Nos. 252 of 2011, 254 of 2011 and 288 of 2011 Between: R.Vasudev Reddy & others …Petitioners And K.Nagaraj & others …Respondents