CHINTHAM RAMANAIAH Vs. YALAGALA SUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of two Interlocutory Applications filed in a common suit between the same parties. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together.

(2.) I have heard Sri K. Koteswara Rao, the learned counsel representing Sri I. Gopala Reddy, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K. Sarvabhouma Rao, the learned counsel for respondent No. 1.

(3.) Respondent No. 1 filed O.S. No. 948 of 2007 in the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties against the petitioners and respondent Nos. 2 and 3. After closure of the evidence of respondent No. 1-plaintiff, the petitioners have adduced oral evidence by examining D.Ws. 1 and 2. The suit was posted for arguments after closing the evidence on behalf of both the parties. Thereafter, the petitioners secured some adjournments and filed two I.As, namely, I.A. No. 1670 of 2013 for reopening the suit for adducing further evidence and I.A. No. 1671 of 2013, under Order XVI Rule 1(2) and Section 151 C.P.C., for summoning one Nagam Basweswaralingam, S/o Late Nagam Brahmanandam, a document writer.