Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 572 (AP)

Boddu Jalaiah v. Boddu Panduranga Rao

2001-06-12

G.BIKSHAPATHY

body2001
G. BIKSHAPATHY, J. ( 1 ) BOTH the revision petitions can be disposed of by a common order as the matters arise out of the orders passed in the same suit. ( 2 ) C. R. P. NO. 1557 of 2001 is filed against the order dated 20-03-2001 made in CFR no. 1996 of 2001 in O. S. No. 196 of 1994 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil judge, Kandukur, refusing to summon the records from the office of the Mandal revenue Officer, Singarayakonda. The petitioner is the plaintiff. The suit was filed for permanent injunction. In the suit, the evidence was adduced on both the sides. When the matter is coming up for arguments, this petition was filed. ( 3 ) LEARNED Judge, after considering the matter, held that the application is filed only to delay the matter. Accordingly, the application was dismissed by the impugned order. The said order is assailed in this revision. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the file, which ought to have been kept with the Mandal Revenue Officer. Singarayakonda was sent to the Collector office and therefore, it is necessary that the mandal Revenue Officer should be called for and examined with reference to the file in F. Dis. No. 159/85 dated 31-07-1975. Thus, the lower Court committed an irregularity resulting in miscarriage of justice. ( 5 ) I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner filed application to summon the documents, after the V. A. O. . Somarajupalli was examined as P. W. 2 with reference to the documents brought by him. The petitioner did not take any steps in respect of the required documents when VAO was examined and closed the evidence on his side. Even when the evidence of the defendants side closed, no steps were taken in respect of the documents now sought to be summoned. Only when the matter was posted for arguments, the present application is filed. The petitioner having failed to take necessary steps at the appropriate time, it will not be open for him to file such an application at the fag end of the case, that too, when it was posted for arguments. In the circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. The petitioner having failed to take necessary steps at the appropriate time, it will not be open for him to file such an application at the fag end of the case, that too, when it was posted for arguments. In the circumstances, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. Accordingly the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ( 6 ) C. R. P. NO. 1556 of 2001 is filed against the order dated 20-03-2001 made in c. F. R. NO. 1995 of 2001 in O. S. NO. 196 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Kandukur. ( 7 ) THE Petitioner filed the petition to reopen the matter to examine the Mandal revenue Officer. Since the C. R. P. No. 1557 of 2001 is dismissed, C. R. P. No. 1556 of 2001 also stands dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed.