(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the order dt.07.10.2025 in lA No.118/2022 in O.S.No.25/2015 passed by the X Addl. District Judge, Gurazala and allow the application to reopen the matter in OS No.25/2015 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings in OS No.25/2015 as the dismissal of common order passed in lA No. 118/2022, is not justifiable and pass)

Common Order:

1. These three Civil Revision Petitions arise out of a common order, dated 07.10.2025, passed by the X Additional District Judge, Gurazala in I.A.No.118 of 2022 to I.A.No.120 of 2022 in O.S.No.25 of 2015.

2. The petitioners herein had filed O.S.No.25 of 2015, before the X Additional District Judge, Gurazala for a declaration and consequential permanent injunction declaring that they are the owners of Ac.20.76 cents of land in Sy.No.335/4C2 of Pondugula Village, Guntur District. The suit was initially filed against the sole defendant. Upon his demise, the defendants 2 and 3 were brought on record as his L.Rs. The trial Court conducted a trial in the matter and the witnesses on behalf of the petitioners were examined as P.Ws.1 to 4 and the evidence of the petitioners were closed on 14.02.2019.

3. After a lapse of three years, the petitioners moved the aforesaid interlocutory applications, under Section 151 of C.P.C, Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C., and Order VII Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. for reopening the evidence of the petitioners; to receive original documents, in the form of certified copies of sale deeds and; to mark the same as additional documents in the suit. These applications were resisted by the respondents on the ground that the present applications have been filed more than three years after closure of the evidence of the petitioners and that the applications have been filed only for the purposes of dragging on the litigation. The respondents also contend that these documents do not in any manner aid the case of the petitioners as there is no legality to such documents.

4. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, dismissed all the three applications, by way of a common order, dated 07.10.2025. Aggrieved by this common order, the petitioners had filed three Civil Revision Petitions which are now being disposed of, by way of this common order.

5. Sri K.V.Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the respondents are disputing the identity and location of the property in question and the same can be settled by marking the documents, mentioned in the applications. He would submit that these are certified copies of deeds of sale under which the neighbouring owners had purchased their properties. He would contend that once these deeds of sale are marked, the boundaries in these deeds of sale, would clearly establish the boundaries of the disputed property and would assist the Court in arriving at a proper decision. The learned counsel would also contend that disallowing these documents, would cause irreparable loss and damage to the interests of the petitioners.

6. The trial Court has recorded that the petitioners have not explained as to why the documents had not been filed earlier. Apart from this, the trial Court had also held that no foundation has been laid in the plaint, for marking these documents. Apart from this, the trial Court also held that the petition filed by the petitioners does not explain as to why these documents could not be filed earlier before his evidence was closed and that it is clear from the chief affidavit filed by the petitioner, on 27.06.2017, that he had knowledge of some of these documents but had neither filed these documents nor given any reasons why they were not filed at the time of his evidence.

7. In view of the aforesaid reasons, given by the trial Court, I am of the opinion that no case is made out before this Court for interfering with such an order. It may also be noted that the learned counsel could not demonstrate to this Court as to why the aforesaid reasons given by the trial Court are arbitrary or unreasonable.

8. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no merits in these Civil Revision Petitions and accordingly, they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

                  As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

                  There shall be no order as to costs.