THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition Nos.3808 & 3810 of 2009 COMMON ODER : Inasmuch as both these revision petitions emanate from a common order and as the parties are one and the same, they can be disposed of together. These revisions have been filed by the petitioners, who are defendants 5 to 9 in O.S.No.4 of 2001, aggrieved by the common order, dated 23-07-2009, passed in I.A.Nos.1642 and 1643 of 2009 in O.S.No.4 of 2001 by the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the applications filed to reopen the case by recalling P.W.5 for marking the document and to recall P.W.5 for marking the document respectively. The plaintiffs – respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the suit for specific performance and when the case is posted for arguments of defendant Nos.2 to 4, it is contended by the revision petitioners before the trial Court that D.W.1 in his evidence in collusion with the plaintiff intentionally denied the signatures on Exs.A20, A21 and A22 of the suit properties and further as per the knowledge of the revision petitioners, the defendants 1 to 4 have not executed the documents under Exs.A1 to A3. The Revision Petitioners, while preparing for arguments, realised that to ascertain the genuineness of the aforesaid documents and to adjudicate the issue involved, the said documents have to be sent to the Government Handwriting Expert and hence, the delay in filing the petitions is neither wilful nor wanton. It is contended by the respondent No.1/plaintiff No.1 before the trial Court that Exs.A20, A21 and A22 are link documents of the predecessors in title of the defendants 1 to 4 and the defendants 5 to 9 and as they are ancient documents and no proof is required under the Indian Evidence Act. It is further contended that Exs.A1 to A3 are executed by the defendants 1 to 4 in his favour and the revision petitioners have no locus standi to question the same and to send the same for expert opinion at this stage. It is further vehemently opposed for allowing the applications on the ground that the present suit is very old one, where the revision petitioners are not cooperating for disposal of the case and present petitions are filed with a view to protract the litigation. The trial Court, after hearing either side, dismissed the applications, observing that as the time granted in C.R.P. No.4310 of 2008 by the Hon’ble High Court was expired, the revision petitioners are not entitled to recall P.W.5 again by filing the present application and further revision petitioners are not the executants of Exs.A1 to A3 and they have also knowledge that the defendants 1 to 4 have not executed those documents. Sri B.Vijaysen Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that revision petitioners are bona fide purchasers and no prejudice will be caused to the respondents if the applications are allowed and on the other hand serious prejudice will be caused to the petitioners. The trial Court ought to have seen that in course of arguments a contention was raised by the plaintiff’s counsel that the petitioners herein are aware of the alleged suit agreement of sale at the time of the institution of the rent control proceedings and hence to disprove the said fact the petitioners intended to file summons in the rent control proceedings and mark the same. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs vehemently contended that every time petitioners are coming up with one application or the other to protract the litigation. It is also contended that the counsel for the revision petitioners has filed a separate memo on a letterhead, which is received by the lower court, to correct the exhibit numbers, which is not in conformity with the provisions of law. Learned counsel for the petitioners admits that there are mistakes in exhibit numbers. Under the above circumstances, the matter is remanded to trial Court to correct the order with appropriate exhibit numbers and to re-issue the order. It is also made clear that in the meanwhile the petitioners shall file an appropriate petition to correct exhibit numbers. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions is not a bar for the petitioners to agitate their rights before the trial Court in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. (T.MEENA KUMARI, J.) 20th August, 2009. skmr