DABBARA SUJATHA Vs. MADINENI RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the unsuccessful respondent/plaintiff are directed against three separate orders made on the same day, 14.12.2015, by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Uravakonda of Anantapur District, in the three interlocutory applications, I.A. Nos. 231, 229 and 230 of 2015, filed respectively for amendment of the written statement, reopening of evidence and receiving the document, certified copy of the registered partition deed dated 30.03.1984, executed amongst defendants 1 to 4 and their late father.

(2.) I have heard the submissions of Sri Seshadri Goalla, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff (hereinafter, 'the plaintiff') and Sri K. Venkatesulu, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 (hereinafter, 'the defendants 1 and 2'). I have perused the material record.

(3.) The basic facts, as per the submissions made by the learned counsel for the plaintiff and as could be culled out from the material on record, in brief, are as follows: The plaintiff brought the suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of an agricultural land. The defendants 1 and 2 and other defendants are resisting the suit by filing written statements. The trial of the suit was in progress. At that stage, the defendants 1 and 2 filed the aforementioned three applications. At present, the suit is at the stage of arguments.