THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.Nos.4577, 4578 and 4582 of 2010 Dated:- 10th June, 2011 Between:- Kaidhapuram Damodar Reddy and others …Petitioners And Kaidhapuram Ramakrishna Reddy and others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.Nos.4577, 4578 and 4582 of 2010 COMMON ORDER:- Since these three revisions arise out of the same dispute, parties are one and the same and common arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel, these three revisions are being disposed by this common order. 2. C.R.P.No.4577, 4578 and 4582 of 2010 are directed against I.A.Nos.309, 307 and 308 of 2010 respectively in O.S.No.3 of 2008, which were disposed of by the Senior Civil Judge, Jangoan, by his order dated 06.09.2010. 3. In all the revisions, the first respondent is the plaintiff, respondents 2 to 9 are defendants 1 to 3 and 9 to 12 and 13 in the Original Suit. The first respondent filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioners herein are defendants 4 to 8, 13 and 14, who contested the matter and filed written statement. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the Original Suit. 4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 were marked. The evidence of D.W.4, though commenced, but could not be completed when the case came up for cross-examination of D.W.4. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.309 of 2010 under Section 151 C.P.C. to re-open the evidence of P.W.1 and D.Ws.1 to 3 for further cross-examination for confrontation of the documents. As seen from the impugned orders, the said petition was dismissed by the Court below in view of the orders passed in I.A.No.307 and 308 of 2010, which were filed by the petitioners herein to receive the documents; and to recall P.W.1 and D.Ws.1 to 3 for further cross-examination for confrontation of the documents respectively. 5. As can be seen from the impugned orders of the Court below, the documents, viz., (1) Original sale agreement dated 31.08.1984; (2) Original receipt dated 19.12.1985 executed by plaintiff in favour of petitioner No.1; (3) Original receipt executed by defendant No.1 in the month of April, 1986; (4) Original Receipt dated 06.11.1986 executed by defendant No.2; and (5) Original receipt dated 05.12.1985 executed by the father of defendant No.9, which are now sought to be filed for the purpose of confronting the same with P.W.1 and D.Ws.1 to 3 were not filed along with the written statement filed by them. The case of the petitioners’ herein is that these documents were misplaced in the old house situated at Wadlakonda Village. 6. Admittedly, there is no pleading with regard to the alleged agreement of sale dated 31.08.1984. Moreover, the agreement of sale is unstamped and an unregistered document. Of course, certain documents can be looked into for collateral purpose under given circumstances. Anyhow, since there is no pleading in the written statement filed by the respondents herein, the order passed by the Court below appears to be perfectly justified and there appears no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders. 7. In support of his contentions, learned counsel had relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case between Syeda Afsar Quadri Vs. Syed Sarwar Baibani (died) by L.R.s[1], P.Vittal Reddy Vs. K.Sharath Babu[2], and U.Madan Gopal Vs. M.Sudhakar[3]. I have perused the above referred judgments. The facts of the above referred cases are entirely different from the facts of the case on hand. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be permitted to file an application to seek amendment in the written statement. It is needless to say that the parties are at liberty to file any application, if they are so advised, but however, as on today, since it is clear that there are no pleadings in the plaint with regard to the above referred documents, the impugned order of the Court below cannot be find fault with. 9. All the three revisions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar 10th June, 2011 Bvv [1] 2010 (1) ALD 134 (DB) [2] 2010 (6) ALD 371 [3] 2010 (4) ALD 481