M SATYANARAYANA ALIAS PEEDA RAJU Vs. KATAMA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRP No. 614 of 2009 is filed by the revision petitioner-defendant being aggrieved upon an order dated 20. 11. 2008 made in IA No. 583 of 2008 in OS No. 416 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni. Likewise CRP No. 717 of 2009 is filed by the selfsame revision petitioner-defendant being aggrieved upon an order dated 20. 11. 2008 made in IA No. 582 of 2008 in os No. 399 of 2006 on the file of the principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni.

(2.) HEARD Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel representing the revision petitioner and Sri R. V. Nagabhushana Rao representing Sri R. V. Prasad, learned counsel representing the respondent, in both the CRPs.

(3.) SRI K. Sitaram, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner-defendant in both the CRPs, would maintain that the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni totally erred in making the aforesaid orders, since there is no provision in the Code of civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') which enables the Court to return a document, which is marked in evidence as an exhibit. He also would maintain that the learned judge ought to have seen that the trial of the suit had already commenced and ex. A1 was marked, and at that stage, if ex. A1 is allowed to be replaced, it would cause serious prejudice to the revision petitioner. He also would maintain that when the respective respondents in both the crps/plaintiffs in both the suits - the father and the son, had not been diligent in prosecuting the litigations, orders of such nature could not have been made. Hence both the CRPs have to be allowed.