THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS:3650 & 3509/2025 COMMON ORDER:- C.R.P.No.3650 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.472 of 2025 in O.S.No.206 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District. 2. C.R.P.No.3509 of 2025 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.445 of 2025 in O.S.No.206 of 2000 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Addanki, Prakasam District. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 4. The petitioner herein is defendant and the respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit. For the convenience of the Court the parties herein are referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court. 5. Learned counsel for the defendant submits that the suit is filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction. In the said suit, the evidence of DW1 was completed on 07.12.2022. The suit is at the further evidence stage. Now, the defendant want to mark the certified copy of the registered settlement deed executed by the plaintiff dated 25.11.2021, mortgage deed dated 07.12.1989 and the certified meeseva copy of 1B dated 11.05.2025. As such, the defendant filed 2 I.A.Nos.472 of 2025 & I.A.No.445 of 2025 in O.S.No.206 of 2000 seeking to receive documents and to recall the evidence of the defendant (DW1) for the purpose of marking of documents. But, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the said I.As. Having no other option, the defendant filed the Civil Revision Petitions. 6. It is observed that the evidence of DW1 was closed on 07.12.2022. After lapse of more than three years, the defendant filed the applications seeking to receive the documents and recall the evidence of DW1. The registered settlement deed pertains to the year 2021 and the mortgage deed pertains to the year 1989. Thus, the defendant was in possession of these documents well before the completion of his evidence. Even though he is in possession of the said two documents, he neither filed them along with the written statement nor produced at the time of his evidence. Kept quiet for all these years, now the defendant came up with the said applications. 7. For better appreciation of the facts, the order passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.472 of 2025 is extracted hereunder: <09. As mentioned above the evidence of DW1 i.e., the petitioner/defendant herein was completed on 07.12.2022. He has not taken any steps to file the above said document even though it is in his possession, even at the time of filing of his written statement or at the time of his evidence or subsequently also till the date of filing of this petition and the reason stated by him is not convincing for the inordinate delay in filing the said document which is very much available with him even much prior to his evidence. Therefore this 3 document cannot be received at this stage without any valid reasons. 10. Coming to the remaining two documents, the 1st document is in between plaintiff and his son Venu Babu, and the respondent/defendant has nothing to do with the said document. The next document that he intends to mark the same is 1B/Mee Seva copy and as per petitioner/defendant it is in respect of item No.2 of the plaint schedule property. But the item No.2 of the plaint schedule property showing that it’s survey number is mentioned as 154, whereas the document which the petitioner filed does not disclose the survey number: 154 property. 11. Further, this suit is of the year 2000 and the document Nos.1 and 3 filed along with this petition are subsequent documents and the 2nd document even though it is in possession of defendant prior to his evidence, he has not produced before the Court. Therefore, from the above discussion and applying the judgments No.1 and 2 as relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, this court is of the opinion that there are no tenable grounds to receive the documents filed along with this petition. Accordingly, this point is answered. 12. In the result, this petition is dismissed.= 8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the orders passed by the trial Court, it is observed that despite the defendant is in possession of the said documents, he failed to give satisfactory explanation for not producing the documents at the appropriate 4 stage. It clearly shows that only to drag on the suit proceedings the defendant filed the said applications. This Court is of the considered opinion that the orders of the trial Court do not warrants interference of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 23.12.2025 TPS 5 178 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3650 & 3509 of 2025 23.12.2025 TPS