IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH (16TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5818 OF 2003 Between: Eendrapu Rathnaiah … Petitioner And: Aragunta Syama Sundar Reddy and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5818 OF 2003 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 13.10.2003 in C.F.R.No.3122 of 2003 in O.S.No.139 of 1999, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore District, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein (D-1), under Section 151 CPC to reopen the matter and grant permission to him to examine himself as a witness, was rejected on the ground that the suit was already disposed of. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner/ D-2 for recovery of Rs.61,933/- said to be due under a promissory note dated 16.01.1997 executed for a sum of Rs.40,000/-. The petitioner/D-1 filed a written statement contesting the suit. D-2 also filed a separate written statement. After issues were settled, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of D-2, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined but no documents were marked. The petitioner/D-1 has not adduced any evidence. Therefore, the trial Court held that the contents of his written statement remained unsubstantiated. Based on the evidence available on record, the trial Court decreed the suit with costs on 13.10.2003. Subsequently, the petitioner/D-1 is said to have filed I.A in C.F.R.No.3122 of 2003 on the same day i.e., 13.10.2003 seeking to reopen the evidence and permit him to be examined as a witness. As the judgment in the suit was already pronounced by the time of filing the application, the trial Court has rightly rejected the petition. The impugned does order does not, therefore, call for any interference. 4. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted earlier by this Court stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th September, 2011 Lrkm.