Full Judgment
S. Ananda Reddy, J.
1. This C.R.P. is directed against the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet dated 7-2-2003 made in I.A. No. 15 of 2003 in O.S. No. 96 of 1987.
2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit. The respondents herein filed the above suit for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property which is an extent of Ac.3.03 guntas in S.No. 340/A. In the said suit trial has been completed in the month of November 2002 and it was coming up for arguments from time to time. At the stage when the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioners filed an application to reopen the suit and allow them to adduce further evidence. According to the petitioners, the respondents filed the suit basing on an entry in 13-C Accounts by virtue of the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and that the said order was assailed before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Bhongir and the Revenue Divisional Officer after full fledged enquiry passed orders on 9-4-1997, setting aside the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer. The revision filed by the respondents against the said order of the Revenue Divisional Officer was also dismissed by the Joint Collector by order dated 4-7-2000. Hence the petitioners sought to reopen the suit to adduce further evidence by filing a copy of the order of the Joint Collector passed in the Revision contending that the though the Joint Collector passed orders on 4-7-2000, the petitioners got the copy of the order through their counsel only a day prior to the date of filing of the present petition and, therefore, they filed the present I.A. seeking to reopen the suit and allow them to adduce further evidence. The said application was opposed by the respondents/plaintiffs contending that it was filed only to drag on the proceedings.
3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, after considering the material on record and also taking into account that a similar earlier application in O.A. No. 423 of 2002 which was also filed to receive certain other documents was dismissed and the fact that the revision preferred against the said order was also dismissed by this Court, came to the conclusion that the present application is filed to drag on the proceedings and though the order sought to be marked was passed on 4-7-2000, the present application is filed belatedly, and consequently dismissed the I.A. Hence this Revision.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated the contentions raised in the Court below and contended that the document sought to be marked in evidence was received by the defendants only recently and, therefore, there was no occasion to file the same at the earliest point of time. The learned counsel, therefore, contended that the Court below committed an error in dismissing the application on the premise that a similar application filed earlier to receive some other documents as additional evidence was dismissed. According to the learned counsel, the Court below dismissed the application without applying its mind and, therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents while supporting the order of the Court below contended that the present application is filed to drag on the proceedings and, therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order in this Revision.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under Revision and the material on record. Admittedly, the petitioners want to mark a document, an order, passed by the Joint Collector on 4-7-2000 in the Revision filed by the respondents, which was dismissed, confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 9-4-1997. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs filed the suit basing on the entry made in 13-C accounts by virtue of the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and that the said order of the Mandal Revenue Officer was set aside by the Revenue Divisional Officer. Therefore, if the order basing on which the suit was filed was set aside in appeal/ revision by the appellate authority, it is for the defendants to adduce such evidence to show that the order on which the main suit was based was set aside by the appellate authority in appeal/revision. In the present case, the defendants now want to file the order of the Joint Collector which was passed on 4-7-2000. The only ground urged in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. is that the defendants received the copy of the order dated 4-7-2000 only recently. This court is unable to accept the said contention. It is not the case of the petitioners that they are not aware of the order of the Joint Collector which was passed on 4-7-2000. If they did not receive the original order from the Joint Collector, nothing prevented them from applying for a certified copy of the said order and filing the same into Court. No steps were taken in that direction. Even other wise also, the order of the revisional authority is only confirming the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer passed on 9-4-1997 which was very much available with the defendants. If they wanted to rely on such proceedings, they ought to have filed the same at the earliest point of time. It is also pertinent to notice that a similar application filed by the petitioners on an earlier occasion was dismissed by the Court below. The Court below has given cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting the application filed by the petitioners and I do not find any material irregularity or illegality nor I find any error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order warranting interference under Section 115 of C.P.C
7. The C.R.P. is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.