Kakani Nageswara Rao v. Kakani Lalitha Kumari

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN Civil Revision Petition Nos.3841, 3844 and 3854 of 2018 Common Order:

All these 3 civil revision petitions arise out of the dismissal of 3 applications, one for reopening evidence, another for recalling P.W.1 and a third for marking the entries in the Diary allegedly maintained by the father of the petitioner herein.

2. Heard Mr. M.Balasubrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff.

3. It is seen that the applications for reopening, recalling and for marking evidence were filed after the evidence on both sides was concluded and the suit was posted for arguments on 30-4-2018. The purpose as to why the petitioner wanted to file the Diary allegedly maintained by his father was to show that he had accounts in Shriram Chits and Margadarsi and that he had deposited these monies.

4. But assuming that these applications are allowed, the entries in the Diary are not going to show the nature of the property. Moreover, there is no question of filing an application under Order VII, Rule 14(3) CPC, after the trial is over and the matter posted for arguments. Hence, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. The interlocutory applications, if any, pending in these revisions shall stand closed. No costs. __________________________ V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.

13th July, 2018.

Ak

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN C.R.P.Nos.3841, 3844 and 3854 of 2018 (Common Order) 13th July, 2018.

(Ak)