ORDER : The Petitioners herein are defendants 1 and 2 in the suit and Respondents 1 and 2 herein are Plaintiffs in the suit and in this Revision Petition the parties are referred as referred in the original suit. Respondent Nos.3 to 10 herein are the Defendant Nos.3 to 10 against which no relief was claimed by the Plaintiffs. More over, the suit against Defendant Nos.3 to 9 is dismissed as not pressed by the Plaintiffs by order dated 27.08.2010. 2. The suit was filed in the year 2010 for recovery of possession and recovery of rent for the period from March, 2008 to July, 2009. The said suit was decreed in the year 2013 against which first appeal was preferred by the Defendants vide A.S.No.53/2013 on the file of learned VIII Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Ongole. Wherein, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit by judgment dated 12.09.2013, against which Second Appeal No:1203 of 2013 was preferred by the Plaintiffs, in which this Hon’ble Court allowed the Second Appeal by setting aside the judgment dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Appellate Court i.e., learned Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge and the case is remanded back to First Appellate Court with a direction that the First Appellate Court shall hear the suit afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to both sides for adducing additional evidence if any and dispose of the case in accordance with law. 3. In the meanwhile, the Defendants / Petitioners herein filed review application No.2/2024 consequent to the orders in S.A.No.1203 of 2013 and the Review was allowed and observed that the Judgment dated 20.10.2013 passed in S.A.No.1203 of 2013 remanding the matter to the First Appellate Court is modified. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the Trial Court by restoring O.S.No.29 of 2010 directing the learned trial Judge to hear both sides and settle necessary additional issues including the one relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit in that regard and permit both sides to adduce any further evidence and hear and dispose of the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 30.11.2024. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Court below erroneously posted the suit for judgment after dismissing the application filed by them for rejection of plaint. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Court below erroneously posted the suit for judgment after dismissing the application filed by them for rejection of plaint. He further submits that even though the Hon’ble High Court specifically directed the Trial Court permitting both parties for further evidence to enable the parties to lead the further evidence, ignoring the same and posting the suit for judgment itself is contrary to the purport of the order of the Hon’ble High Court. He further submits that the order impugned passed by the Court below is without any reasons and it is not a speaking order. As such, the order impugned is liable to be interfered by this Court. He further asserts that the Court below cannot call failure of justice and deny the reasonable opportunity to the parties to the suit to put forward their case on the ground that the Hon’ble High Court specifically directed the period of limitation for the disposal of the suit. He further contends that the dismissal of present application which is meant for seeking permission of reopen of evidence as well as for further cross- examination of PW1 is in accordance with mandatory directions of the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 10.05.2024. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below dismissing the petition is contrary to law and on facts and liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for Respondents submits that the Hon’ble High Court specifically directed in its order dated 10.05.2024 that the trial Court shall hear both sides and settle necessary issues including one relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit and permit both sides to adduce any further evidence and dispose of the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 30.11.2024. In compliance of the order of this Court the Court below framed additional issues and posted the matter for adducing the evidence if any. Even though the matter was remanded for framing additional issues to lead further evidence, for one reason or the other the Defendants in the suit even after having an opportunity, no issues were proposed and accordingly issues were finalized and posted the matter for further evidence. The plaintiffs reported no further evidence and the matter posted for defendants’ evidence. Even though the matter was remanded for framing additional issues to lead further evidence, for one reason or the other the Defendants in the suit even after having an opportunity, no issues were proposed and accordingly issues were finalized and posted the matter for further evidence. The plaintiffs reported no further evidence and the matter posted for defendants’ evidence. Even though the matter was posted for defendants’ evidence, the defendants failed to adduce any evidence in their support in spite of having availed sufficient opportunity for adducing evidence. Thus the Court below rightly closed the evidence and posted the matter for argument on 14.10.2024. Then when the matter was posted for argument / judgment, the defendants filed present petitions on 14.10.2024 seeking reopen of evidence as well as to re-call of PW1 for further cross-examination. The said petitions filed by the defendants is certainly an afterthought with an intention to drag the matter and also contrary to the judgment of Hon’ble High Court in which the trial Court was specifically directed to dispose of the suit on or before 30.11.2024. Considering the facts and circumstances of the order of Hon’ble High Court the Court below rightly dismissed I.A.Nos.709 & 708 of 2024 in O.S.No.29 of 2010 filed under order 18 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC . 6. He further submits that the Court below rightly dismissed the applications filed by the defendants by holding that the defendants did not specifically mention on which aspects PW1 has to be further cross-examined. The aspects are not relevant to the issue for determination, more over the determination of additional issue does not require further cross-examination of PW1. In view of specific and categorical findings and reasons, the present applications to recall of PW1 evidence and cross-examination are rightly dismissed by the Court below. 7. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri S.S. Prasad, representing Ms. C. Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and perused the material placed on record. 8. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2010 for recovery of possession and recovery of monthly rental amount. The suit was decreed in the year 2013, against which an appeal was preferred. C. Sindhu Kumari, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 and perused the material placed on record. 8. Admittedly, the suit was filed in the year 2010 for recovery of possession and recovery of monthly rental amount. The suit was decreed in the year 2013, against which an appeal was preferred. The appeal was allowed in the year 2013, against which the Plaintiffs preferred Second Appeal and the Second Appeal was allowed vide orders dated 12.09.2013, against which Second Appeal No.1203 of 2013 was preferred by the Plaintiffs, in which this Hon’ble Court allowed the Second Appeal by setting aside the judgment dated 12.09.2012 passed by learned Family Court-cum-VIII Additional District Judge and the case is remanded back to First Appellate Court with a direction that the First Appellate Court shall hear the suit afresh after granting an opportunity of hearing to both sides for adducing additional evidence if any and dispose of the case in accordance with law. It is observed that against which the defendants preferred review application No.2/2024 in consequence to the order passed in S.A.No.1203 of 2013, the Review Petition was allowed and observed that the Judgment dated 20.10.2013 passed in S.A.No.1203 of 2013 remanding the matter to the First Appellate Court is modified. Consequently, the matter is remitted to the Trial Court by restoring O.S.No.29 of 2010 directing the learned trial Judge to hear both sides and settle necessary additional issues including the one relating to pecuniary jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit in that regard and permit both sides to adduce any further evidence and hear and dispose of the matter in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably on or before 30.11.2024. 9. In compliance of the order of Hon’ble High Court, the Court below rightly provided opportunity to both parties for framing additional issues. In fact, either the Petitioners or Defendants not placed any additional issues except issue of pecuniary jurisdiction, for which the matter was remanded. It is further observed that the Petitioners/Defendants provided ample opportunity for submitting additional issues if any but they did not availed the same and matter was posted for further evidence. Even though the defendants provided ample opportunity to adduce further evidence, they did not prefer to adduce any evidence. It is further observed that the Petitioners/Defendants provided ample opportunity for submitting additional issues if any but they did not availed the same and matter was posted for further evidence. Even though the defendants provided ample opportunity to adduce further evidence, they did not prefer to adduce any evidence. Since no further evidence is reported by the both parties, the matter was rightly posted for arguments on 04.10.2024. 10. As a matter of judicial discipline and due to principle of binding nature the Court below shall adhere to the orders of this Court as it is, as such the suit shall be disposed of on or before 30.11.2024. It seems that as an afterthought the Defendants filed present application Nos.708 and 709 of 2024 seeking to reopen the suit and to recall of PW1 for further cross- examination. Certainly, it is with a malafide intention / ulterior motive and with an intention to drag the matter beyond limitation prescribed by this Court. No reasons were assigned in their applications for not adducing evidence when the matter was posted for further evidence. Even in these revision applications no reasons were properly explained and in the absence of any specific aspect/issue for cross-examination of PW.1 evidence due to non-framing of any additional issue filing these applications are with an ulterior motive only. As far as the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction as directed by this Court is concerned, it would be determined by the material placed on record, for which neither any evidence of plaintiffs nor evidence of defendants is required for such determination. Hence, the Court below has rightly dismissed the applications of the Petitioners/Defendants. Further, neither perversity nor illegality can be attributed to the order of the Court below. 11. In view of the facts and circumstances, these applications are filed only to drag the matter further more time and contrary to the directions of this Court, by which specific period was fixed for disposal of the suit. 12. Therefore, the present applications are intentionally filed to defeat the object of the orders of this Court dated 10.05.2024. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications if any pending, shall stand closed.