GADE RAMACHANDRAIAH DIED Vs. GADE LINGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.R.P. is directed against the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet dated 7-2-2003 made in I.A. No.15 of 2003 in O.S. No.96 of 1987.

(2.) The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit. The respondents herein filed the above suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property which is an extent of Ac.3.03 guntas in S.No.340/A. In the said suit trial has been completed in the month of November 2002 and it was coming up for arguments from time to time. At the stage when the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioners filed an application to reopen the suit and allow them to adduce further evidence. According to the petitioners, the respondents filed the suit basing on an entry in 13-C Accounts by virtue of the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and that the said order was assailed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir and the Revenue Divisional Officer after full fledged enquiry passed orders on 9-4-1997, setting aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The revision filed by the respondents against the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was also dismissed by the Joint Collector by order dated 4-7-2000. Hence the petitioners sought to reopen the suit to adduce further evidence by filing a copy of the order of the Joint Collector passed in the Revision contending that the though the Joint Collector passed orders on 4-7-2000, the petitioners got the copy of the order through their counsel only a day prior to the date of filing of the present petition and, therefore, they filed the present LA. seeking to reopen the suit and allow them to adduce further evidence. The said application was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs contending that it was filed only to drag on the proceedings.

(3.) The learned Junior Civil Judge, after considering the material on record and also taking into account that a similar earlier application in O.A. No.423 of 2002 which was also filed to receive certain other documents was dismissed and the fact that the revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed by this Court, came to the conclusion that the present application is filed to drag on the proceedings and though the order sought to be marked was passed on 4-7-2000, the present application is filed belatedly, and consequently dismissed the LA. Hence this Revision.