ORDER : P.Sam Koshy, J. Since the issue involved in these two Revisions is arising out of the same Suit, and the parties also being the same, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. Heard Mr. K.Bhanu Prakash, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Kothapalli Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Civil Revision Petition No.363 of 2025 is filed assailing the order dated 20.01.2025, in I.A.No.861 of 2024 in O.S.No.124 of 2011, passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar; and Civil Revision Petition No.820 of 2025 is filed assailing the order dated 20.01.2025, in I.A.No.862 of 2024 in O.S.No.124 of 2011, passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. 4. Vide the impugned orders; the Trial Court dismissed the two petitions filed by the petitioner herein, one under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘ CPC ’) seeking to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking documents, and the other petition under Section 151 of CPC for reopening the evidence of PW.1 so as to enable her to mark the listed documents. 5. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner, an illiterate woman who claims to have been misled by the village elders, filed a suit for partition of the joint family property and for separate possession of her 1/4 th share in the suit schedule property. The suit was filed in the year 2011. The petitioner’s father, Late Chiguruinthala Balaiah @ Bal Reddy, was adopted by Mrs. Siddenki Rangamma and Mr. Siddenki Narsi Reddy. The latter was the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. Mrs. Siddenki Rangamma was married prior to the year 1954. However, following the demise of her husband, she was adopted by the petitioner’s father. Consequently, the share of Mrs. Siddenki Rangamma devolved upon the petitioner’s father. After his marriage, the petitioner’s father began residing in the same village as the petitioner, along with the parents of respondent Nos.1 to 8. 6. The agricultural activities on the property were carried out jointly by the petitioner’s father and her maternal uncles, namely Mr. Sathi Reddy and Mr. Ram Reddy. Siddenki Rangamma devolved upon the petitioner’s father. After his marriage, the petitioner’s father began residing in the same village as the petitioner, along with the parents of respondent Nos.1 to 8. 6. The agricultural activities on the property were carried out jointly by the petitioner’s father and her maternal uncles, namely Mr. Sathi Reddy and Mr. Ram Reddy. The Kasara Pahani records also indicate that the names of the petitioner’s father and her maternal uncles were reflected in the revenue records, although the Suit schedule property was exclusively owned by the petitioner’s father. Despite the fact that the parents of respondent Nos.1 to 8 submitted a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal claiming possession of the suit schedule property, the said declaration was not accepted by the Tribunal. Nevertheless, respondent Nos.1 to 8 managed to take possession of certain portions of the land. 7. According to the petitioner, although respondent Nos.1 and 2 placed strong reliance on a partition deed that was allegedly executed, and even assuming, without admitting that such a partition deed is genuine, it is submitted that subsequent to the execution of the said deed, Mr. Ram Reddy and Mr. Sathi Reddy, along with the petitioner’s father, sold portions of the property to third parties and also obtained release deeds, however, these release deeds were not produced or brought on record. Furthermore, when the petitioner’s sons filed an application to set aside the ex parte orders, the same was dismissed. She intended to confront DW.1 with the above-mentioned documents during cross-examination conducted on 06.09.2024 and again on 23.09.2024. However, this was opposed by DW.1, who stated that he would only respond to questions pertaining to the documents that had been formally marked as exhibits. As a result, he did not address the documents that remained unmarked. The petitioner contends that these unmarked documents are crucial to the adjudication of the case. These documents include certified copies of Pahanies from the year 1954-55, as well as certified copies of sale deeds and release deeds. The petitioner submits that if permission to mark these documents is not granted, she will suffer a substantial loss. Accordingly, she has filed two petitions praying the Trial Court to reopen and recall the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of marking the unmarked documents. 8. The petitioner submits that if permission to mark these documents is not granted, she will suffer a substantial loss. Accordingly, she has filed two petitions praying the Trial Court to reopen and recall the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of marking the unmarked documents. 8. It is these two petitions which stood dismissed by the Trial Court leading to filing of the instant Revisions. 9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner is only seeking permission to mark documents which are already on record. It was further contended that the reason for filing the aforesaid two petitions was that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and their counsel before the Trial Court failed to cooperate and opposed the petitioner during cross-examination when questions were raised regarding the said documents. 10. It was further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the positions of the parties are interchangeable and when respondent Nos.1 and 2 object to clear marking the relevant documents that are essential for adjudicating the matter, the petitioner was compelled to file the aforementioned two petitions seeking reopening and recalling of PW.1’s evidence for the purpose of marking the unmarked documents. Further, the Trial Court’s finding that the documents sought to be marked were not pleaded in the plaint is incorrect in light of the settled position of law. 11. Lastly, it was contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that technicalities should not obstruct the adjudication of a suit on its merits. The Trial Court denying permission to mark the unmarked documents would effectively close the petitioner’s case and cause irreparable loss. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court and to allow the instant revisions. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents opposing the Revisions, contended that the impugned orders under challenge in the instant Revisions are totally in accordance with law and have been passed giving justifiable reasons and, therefore, there is hardly any scope of interference left for the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 13. According to the learned counsel for the respondents what is necessary to be looked into is that, the Suit, in fact originally was one which was filed in the year 2011. 13. According to the learned counsel for the respondents what is necessary to be looked into is that, the Suit, in fact originally was one which was filed in the year 2011. That the present I.As. have been filed after about 14 years i.e. in the year 2024, and that too at the fag end of trial. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that since the sons of the petitioner had earlier relying upon the very same documents moved a petition for setting aside of the ex parte proceedings, which stood rejected and has since attained finality, the petitioner now cannot be permitted to bring on record and mark those documents which were otherwise rejected by the Trial Court in the past at the instance of the petitioner’s sons. 14. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the instant Revisions showing reasons why they intend to rely upon these documents now and want to recall and reopen the evidence of PW.1 for marking of these documents are all after thought grounds raised only for the purpose of filing instant Revisions. 15. Thus, for all aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel for the respondents prayed for dismissal of the instant Revisions. 16. Having gone through the contents and submissions made by both the parties, admittedly the petitioner had filed a Suit for partition and joint possession in the year 2011 and the two sons of the petitioner were also impleaded as defendant Nos.11 and 12 in the Suit. The defendant Nos.11 and 12 had been proceeded ex parte by the Trial Court on their non-appearance in spite of service of notice. The trial had commenced and the petitioner herein also got examined herself as PW.1 at the initial stage of the trial itself somewhere in the year 2011-12. While PW.1 had given her evidence, Exs.A1 to 10 were marked. Subsequently, when the matter was posted for further evidence of the petitioner, an I.A. was filed on her behalf i.e. I.A.No.1181 of 2017 to recall her evidence and to receive certain further documents. This I.A. stood allowed and PW.1 entered re-appearance for evidence and, subsequently, two more documents were marked i.e. Exs.A11 and 12. Thereafter, the evidence of PW.1 stood closed and the matter was posted for the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. This I.A. stood allowed and PW.1 entered re-appearance for evidence and, subsequently, two more documents were marked i.e. Exs.A11 and 12. Thereafter, the evidence of PW.1 stood closed and the matter was posted for the evidence of PWs.2 and 3. They were also examined and cross-examined on 07.01.2022 and the matter next stood posted for defendants evidence. 17. Meanwhile, the defendant Nos.11 and 12, who are the sons of the petitioner and who had been proceeded ex parte filed I.A.No.151 of 2022 under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC seeking for setting aside of the ex parte order. In the said application under Order IX Rule 7 of CPC , the defendant Nos.11 and 12 have relied upon the very same documents which the petitioner now wants to be brought on record as an exhibit i.e. the registered sale deeds, release sale deeds and certified copies of the pahanies. However, the said application filed for setting aside of the ex parte proceedings stood rejected on 05.02.2024. The said order was subjected to challenge before the High Court in another Revision which was registered as Civil Revision Petition No.601 of 2024. The High Court also dismissed the said Revision on 12.08.2024. 18. After the defendant Nos.11 and 12 were unsuccessful in bringing these documents on record, the instant I.As. were filed by the petitioner herein i.e. I.A.Nos.861 and 862 of 2024 in September, 2024. In between, the proceedings before the Trial Court proceeded to record the defendants evidence, who were also cross-examined and the matter was thereafter posted for final arguments in the Suit on 20.11.2024. It is at this stage that the aforesaid two I.As. filed by the petitioner which stood dismissed vide the impugned orders on 20.01.2025 and are under challenge in the instant Revisions. 19. From the afore given admitted factual backdrop, what is evidently clear is that, a Suit was already pending consideration for almost 15 years. PW.1’s evidence was recorded almost a decade back. During all this time when the Suit was pending before the Trial Court, the petitioner never thought of getting these documents marked. 19. From the afore given admitted factual backdrop, what is evidently clear is that, a Suit was already pending consideration for almost 15 years. PW.1’s evidence was recorded almost a decade back. During all this time when the Suit was pending before the Trial Court, the petitioner never thought of getting these documents marked. The petitioner also did not think it proper to get these documents marked when the petitioner had earlier moved an I.A. seeking to recall the evidence of PW.1 and to receive certain further documents, which was allowed by the Trial Court and certain documents were also marked at the behest of petitioner vide I.A.No.1181 of 2017. The petitioner also did not care to get these documents marked when PWs.2 and 3 also have got themselves examined. Subsequently, the defendants evidence also stood closed who were also cross-examined at length by the petitioner. That, it is at this stage, when the Suit itself after a long drawn battle was fixed for final arguments that the I.A.No.861 of 2024 was filed by the plaintiff seeking to recall the evidence of PW.1 and I.A.No.862 of 2024 was filed to reopen the evidence of PW.1 to mark listed documents, who had earlier also been recalled in the past, in the year 2017. 20. In the aforesaid factual backdrop, if the Trial Court reaches to the conclusion that the purpose of filing of I.A.Nos.861 and 862 of 2024 by the petitioner was deliberate, and with malafide intention of protracting the proceedings, and also the said documents are not relevant documents so far as the petitioner’s Suit is concerned, which is primarily a Suit for partition and separate possession, the same cannot be found fault with nor can it be said to be either perverse or contrary to the statutory provisions and settled legal position as well. 21. What is also pertinent to take note of, is that, the reference of these documents does not find place in the plaint itself and these documents are sought to be marked without there being any foundational basis in respect of the Suit and more particularly for the relief sought for. 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is also of the considered opinion that no case for interdicting the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 has been made out. 22. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is also of the considered opinion that no case for interdicting the impugned orders passed by the Trial Court, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 has been made out. Neither is there any strong case made out by the petitioner to hold that the impugned orders are per se illegal or bad in law. The instant Revisions thus being devoid of merit, deserves to be and are accordingly, dismissed. 23. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs