NALLAPATI BALARAMAIAH Vs. MANUGOTI SRI LAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a single suit between the same parties. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together. The petitioner is the defendant in OS.No.49 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Macherla, Guntur District. The said suit was filed by the respondent for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with her possession of the suit schedule property. The trial in the case was commenced in the year 2009. After both the parties have examined their respective witnesses i.e., four on each side, the suit was posted for arguments on 27-11-2009. Thereafter, the respondent has filed three IAs viz., IA.No.683 of 2010 for reopening the plaintiff 's side evidence, IA.No.684 of 2010 for recalling PW.1 and IA.No.685 of 2010 for marking six documents. The petitioner resisted the said applications. However, the lower Court, by separate Orders, allowed all the IAs. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.

(2.) AT the hearing, Mr.M.Koteswara Rao, learned Counsel, representing Mr.N.Subba Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the lower Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in allowing the IAs even though they were filed at a highly belated stage i.e,. after closure of the trial. Mr.P.PrabhakarRao, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, however, sought to support the impugned orders of the lower Court. I have carefully considered the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) THE Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, disposed of with costs. As a sequel, interim order, dated 16-09-2011, is vacated and CRPMP.No.4454 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous.