Lingampalli Murali Goud, v. Palamakula Rama Krishna,

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V.BHATT CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.7007 and 7069 of 2017 COMMON ORDER:

The plaintiff in O.S.No.90 of 2012 is the revision petitioner in these two Civil Revision Petitions.

The petitioner filed I.A.No.446 of 2017 to recall plaintiff's side evidence and to mark further documents and I.A.No.448 of 2017 to reopen the matter for plaintiff's side evidence and to make further documents.

The learned trial Judge, through the orders impugned in the revisions, dismissed the applications. Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions.

The petitioner though raises several grounds against the orders impugned in the Civil Revision Petitions, the same cannot be accepted since the suit is one for declaration of title and perpetual injunction, the evidence of petitioner was closed about three years back, the evidence of defendants' side is also completed and at that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.446 of 2017 and 448 of 2017. After perusing the record, firstly this Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusions reached by the trial Court and secondly, the petitioner in spite of raising several grounds could not bring the Civil Revision Petitions within the scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

For the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

_____________ S. V. BHATT, J Date: 15-12-2017 Prv