A.Padmanabha Chowdary v. A.Jaganmohan Rao

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 477 OF 2015 Between:

Sri A.Padmanabha Chowdary and another. ...Petitioners And Sri A.Jaganmohan Rao and others. ... Respondents Date of Judgment pronounced: 24.07.2015 Submitted for Approval:

The Hon'ble Sri Justice A.Rajasheker Reddy

1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No

3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 477 OF 2015 ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order and decree dated 20.01.2015 in I.A.No.544 of 2014 in A.T.C.No.20 of 2011, wherein the Court below has dismissed the application of the petitioner for reopening the petitioner's evidence and to examine the 2nd petitioner as P.W.4 by receiving her chief examination affidavit. Heard both sides.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Court below has erroneously dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that P.W.1 was already examined in the year 2013, as such, no useful purpose would be served in examining the 2nd petitioner herein, who is none other than the wife of P.W.1.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that evidence is closed on 13.06.2013 and the I.A.No.544 of 2014 is filed on 12.12.2014, as such, the petitioner has no bonafides in filing the above application.

The Tenancy Case No.20 of 2011 is filed by the petitioners, who are cultivating tenants. The evidence in the above case was closed on 13.06.2013 and that the petitioners waited for more than one year and filed the interlocutory application for reopening the evidence of the petitioner. Being tenants, they want to drag on the proceedings and that is the reason why they took more than one year to file the said application. Moreover, the Court below has also found that the husband of the petitioner is also examined.

In view of the same, I do not see any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Court below for exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand dismissed.

_________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 24.07.2015.

KVS

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

C.R.P. No.477 OF 2015 Date: 24-07-2015 KVS