K.J.REDDY Vs. M.BHASKAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) These revisions are filed against the common order passed in I.A.No. 138 of 2020, I.A.No. 140 of 2022 and I.A.No. 143 of 2022 and docket orders in I.A Nos. 137 of 2022 and I.A.No. 141 of 2022 in O.S.No. 56 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool dtd. 14/3/2023 in rejecting to receive the documents mentioned in I.A.No. 138 of 2022 and recall PW1 for marking of those documents.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the petitioners in the above said I.As and plaintiffs in the suit. The respondent is the respondent in the I.As and the defendant in the suit. The suit is filed in O.S.No. 56 of 2017 on the file of VI Additional District Judge, Kurnool by the petitioners against the respondent as defendant in the said suit seeking declaration of title and grant of permanent injunction with respect to the suit schedule property to an extent of Ac. 3.95 cents in Sy.Nos. 414/3, 414/1A and 414/1B. In the plaint of the suit, it is stated that one Mr. Chennaiah and E.C. Manohar also filed O.S.No. 19 of 2003 seeking injunction against the government when it tried to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property therein and obtained interim injunction during the pendency of the suit. Subsequently, the said suit was decreed.