BATHALA GURAVAIAH Vs. B PITCHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ramesh, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondents.

(2.) Sri Ramesh, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner had brought it to the notice of this Court that on the self same day i.e. on 21-2-2005, in the same application in I.A.No.4 of 2004 in A.S.No.7 of 2002, the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Rajampet at Badvel, made two orders and hence, the revision petitioner was constrained to file two C.R.Ps. The learned counsel also would point out that the learned Judge of this Court made an order in C.R.P.No.1023 of 2005, dated 25-4-2005, wherein the impugned order was set aside and the appellate Court was directed to consider the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for brevity 'CPC') at the time of disposal of the appeal as to the relevancy of documents on merits and pass appropriate orders. In the light of the same, the learned counsel would maintain that the present C.R.P. also may have to be allowed.

(3.) Sri L.J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the respondents, would maintain that it is peculiar that on the selfsame day, the learned Judge appeared to have made two orders in an application filed in I.A.No.4 of 2004 in A.S.No.7 of 2002, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC for reception of documents as additional evidence. The learned counsel also made an attempt to show that none of the ingredients of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, in fact, are satisfied and even otherwise the learned counsel would maintain that in the light of the order already passed, no further orders need be passed in the present C.R.P.