HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 921 OF 2025 ORDER: By this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners-plaintiffs have prayed for setting aside the order dated 04-03-2025 in I.A.No. 6 of 2025 in O.S.No. 26 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Punganur (for short, 'the trial Court'). 2. Heard Sri S.V.Muni Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-plaintiffs. 3. The petitioners, who are plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S.No. 26 of 2018 on the file of the trial Court against the respondents herein, who are defendants, seeking declaration of their exclusive right and title over suit schedule property, for consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and their family members from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over suit schedule property in any manner, to direct defendant Nos. 8 and 9 to mutate their names in relevant revenue records in respect of suit schedule property as per registered settlement deed and gift settlement deed and issue pattadar passbooks and title deeds in their favour and for other reliefs. The respondents-defendants are contesting the suit by 2 filing a written statement. In the aforesaid proceeding, based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed issues, evidence on both sides commenced and concluded on 08-08-2023. Subsequently, the suit is being adjourned from time to time for advancement of arguments. While the suit stands thus, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed I.A.No. 234 of 2023 seeking to cause production of documents and to summon the Tahsildar, Chowdepalli Mandal-defendant No. 9 and the said application came to be dismissed on 13-12-2023. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed a memo informing the trial Court that they preferred revision before this Court against the orders dated 13-12-2023 in I.A.No. 234 of 2023 and therefore requested time. Accordingly, the trial Court granted time till 25-01-2024 and on 26-12-2024, as no copy obtaining orders from this Court has been filed, the matter is posted for arguments. At this stage, the plaintiffs filed the present interlocutory application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, 'C.P.C.') seeking to reopen the suit to mark the documents mentioned in the petition in the interest of justice. The respondents-defendants filed counter affidavit inter alia contending that the document which the plaintiffs seek to mark on their behalf is with regard to survey No. 95/2 but suit schedule property is situated in survey No. 94 and the said survey number has nothing to do with suit schedule property. The trial Court has dismissed the above said interlocutory application by the order under revision. 3 4. In this context, this Court may refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Bagai Construction, through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai Vs. M/s. Gupta Building Material Store1, wherein it is held that recording of evidence has to be a continuous process followed by arguments and decision of the Court. Adjournments, reopening and recall of witnesses are to be allowed only in compelling circumstances. It is further held that there must be a constant endeavour to follow such time schedule and if the same is not followed, the very purpose of amending several provisions in the C.P.C. would get defeated. 5. Reverting back to the facts of the present case as indicated above, the original suit is filed in the year 2018, written statement is filed, issues are settled, evidence on both sides commenced and concluded as far back as on 08-08-2023. The suit is of the year 2018 and the document intended to be produced is of the year 2020. Therefore, the trial Court is justified in observing that the plaintiffs intend to produce subsequent document. Moreover, the suit is at the stage of final arguments. It is not that the petitioners-plaintiffs were not provided with an opportunity to give their evidence and produce documents. When the facts of the present case are tested on the touchstone of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above decision, 1 AIR 2013 SC 1849 4 the answer is in the negative. The petitioners-plaintiffs are not entitled for reopening the suit in casual manner defeating the very purpose of amendment to C.P.C. Thus, there is no ground to allow I.A.No. 6 of 2025 filed at the stage of arguments. 6. For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court and the order under revision does not warrant any interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed at the admission stage confirming the order dated 04-03-2025 in I.A.No. 6 of 2025 in O.S.No. 26 of 2018 on the file of the Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Punganur. Considering the fact that the original suit is filed in the year 2018, evidence is concluded long back and the matter is being adjourned for arguments at the instance of the petitioners-plaintiffs by the time of filing this application in I.A.No. 6 of 2025, learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Punganur, is directed to dispose of the original suit within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand dismissed in consequence. ________________________ Date: 04-04-2025, JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY JSK 5 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 921 OF 2025 DATE: 04TH APRIL, 2025 JSK