THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.2644 & 2654 of 2010 Date of Order: 25-06-2010 CT in CRP No.2644 of 2010 Between: P.Raghu ..Petitioner and M/s.SriramChits Pvt. Ltd.,Rajahmundry Branch, Rep.by its divisional Manager ..Respondent The Court made the following common Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.2644 & 2654 of 2010 Common order: The 1st defendant in the suit filed these revisions questioning the common order passed in I.A.Nos.961 and 962 of 2009 in O.S.No.534 of 2008 dated 06-03-2010 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Rajahmundry. I.A.No.961 of 2009 was filed to reopen the suit, I.A.No.962 of 2009 was filed to recall PW.1 and I.A.No.963 of 2009 was filed to receive additional chief affidavit of P.W.1. The learned Senior Civil Judge allowed all the applications on payment of cost of Rs.750/- to the 1st defendant. Hence the present revisions. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier similar applications—I.A.Nos.529 and 530 of 2009 were filed by the respondent/plaintiff. I.A.No.529 of 2009 was filed to re-open the suit and I.A.No.530 of 2009 was filed to receive the fresh chief affidavit of P.W.1 to substitute the earlier affidavit. The trial court dismissed the same. Against which two revisions were filed and the same were also dismissed. Therefore, the above I.As., which were filed for the very same relief, ought not to have been entertained by the trial court. Admittedly, the lower court, which reserved the judgment, suo motu reopened the suit on 05-11-2009 for the reasons mentioned in para-6 of the impugned order. On reopening the suit, the above I.As. came to be filed which were allowed and also received the chief affidavit of P.W.1 in substitution of the earlier affidavit. The matter was reserved for judgment and it is likely to be delivered in the next week. Though the petitioner received the certified copy of the order on 02-04-2010, has not chosen to question the same since from three months and approached this court by way of lunch motion only to forestall the judgment, having argued the matter on receipt of affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW.1. Such practice cannot be allowed. I see no reason to entertain the revisions and they are accordingly dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to question the same in case if the suit is decreed and against which if any appeal is filed as per Section 105 (2) CPC. The C.R.Ps. are accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 25-06-2010 Murthy