THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.3034/2010 Dt,16-7-2010 1. Chegondi Balamani and others ..Petitioners V. Khandavilli Venkata Subba Rao ..Respondent The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.3034/2010 ORAL ORDER The defendant in OS No.30/2008 invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this court by filing this revision petition under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India to review the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta dt. 24-6-2010 passed in IA No.618/2010, whereunder petition filed by the defendant under Section 151 CPC to condone the delay in filing the documents and to mark them on his behalf was dismissed. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and for recovery of possession alleging that the suit schedule property is in possession of the defendants. The third defendant representing the case on behalf of other defendants filed the above IA stating that he obtained certain documents from the Sub-Registrar’s Office, Ambajipeta and Tahsildar, P.Gannavaram, namely, (1) Certified copy of registered partition deed dt. 19-12-1970; (2) Certified copy of the sale deed dt. 26-2-2003; (3) Certified copy of the sale deed dt. 13-12-2004 and (4) Certified copy of FMB dt. 14-9-1920 in connection with R.S.No.274/1 and he did not file those documents along with the written statement and the same may be received and marked to confront the case of the plaintiff and to prove that the shortage of property of the plaintiff is some where else but not in the encroachment of the defendants as pleaded by the plaintiff. Admittedly, there is no plea taken by the defendants in their written statement that Vishakha Dairy was in possession of five cents more in the property than they purchased 20 cents and further Nandepu Peda Appalamma executed a gift settlement deed in favour of her two sons by giving 12 ½ cents each in the suit survey number and sons of Appallamma sold the same to Visakha Dairy and Visakha Dairy is in possession and enjoyment of 25 cents. It is fairly well settled that in the absence of any plea that the persons other than the defendants are in possession and they are not encroaching the property, mere making a suggestion to the plaintiff in the cross-examination will not be taken into consideration in substantiating the plea taken by the defendants. In the absence of any pleadings, making suggestions either to the plaintiff or leading evidence is worthless. The impugned order passed by the trial court dismissing the application does not warrant any interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.16-7-2010 kmr