KARNAKANTIGOPI Vs. K RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Sri V. Ravikiran Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Laxman Batchu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. CRP No. 3861 of 2009 is filed against the order dated 4.2.2009 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in IA No. 919 of 2008 in CMA No. 12 of 2008. Whereas CRP No. 3860 of 2009 is filed against the order dated 4.3.2009 passed by the VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in CMA No. 12 of 2008 dismissing CMA No. 12 of 2009 and confirming the order dated 24.4.2008 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in IA No. 84 of 2008 in OS No. 23 of 2008.

(2.) The subject-matter in both the revisions is one and the same and between the same parties, therefore, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of by the following common order.

(3.) The respondents instituted OS No. 23 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad for injunction simplicitor in respect of certain landed properties against the revision petitioners. They also filed IA No. 84 of 2008 in the said suit seeking temporary injunction pending disposal of the suit. The revision petitioners contended inter alia before the learned trial Court that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also in view of the judgment passed in the earlier suit, OS No. 127 of 1982 in respect of the same properties having become final, the present suit instituted by the respondents is not maintainable. These and other contentions urged by the respondents were rejected by the learned trial Court, which granted temporary injunction allowing IA No. 84 of 2008. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision petitioners preferred CMA No. 12 of 2008 which came to be heard by the VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. The revision petitioners filed IA No. 919 of 2008 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC to receive certain documents as additional evidence. It was contended by the revision petitioners before the learned Additional District Judge, the documents which they propose to bring on record are very much essential for considering the CMA and that in spite of due diligence they could not file documents in the trial Court. The learned Additional District Judge disposed of IA No. 919 of 2008 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC independently by dismissing the said application. Subsequently the learned Additional District Judge also dismissed the CMA. Now, against the order dismissing the additional evidence application filed under Order 41, Rule 27 of CPC and the judgment in CMA No. 12 of 2008 the revision petitioners filed two separate civil revision petitions.