HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No. 508 OF 2010 Friday, the twenty Eighth day of January, Two Thousand and Eleven Between The Gram Panchayat of Uppalapadu, Rep. by its Secretary U.Venkat Rao Petitioner AND Nandipati Sankara Prasad Respondent ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner - defendant in O.S. No.13 of 2003 assailing the order dated 18.1.2010 passed by the learned II District Judge, Guntur, dismissing I.A. No. 1292 of 2009 seeking to reopen the evidence for marking certain documents on its behalf. The respondent herein filed the above suit claiming damages against the Gram Panchayat, petitioner herein. It is case of the petitioner herein that though PW-1 was cross examined with regard to the terms and conditions of the auction, but failed to mark the same and the agreement executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioner, as well. It is submitted that those documents are crucial for deciding the lis and, therefore, it is just and essential to reopen the evidence for the purpose of receiving and marking the documents. The Court below dismissed the said application inasmuch as the application filed under Order 8 Rule 3 to grant leave to the petitioner to file documents and to recall PW-1 and DW-4 for cross-examination is dismissed on merits. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. As can be seen from the order impugned, the petition was dismissed on the sole ground that it was filed at a belated stage, though the petitioner being a local body, was in possession of the documents, which are sought to be filed. As sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the documents are crucial for just decision of the lis involved in the suit. That apart, it is in the interest of both the parties that the suit shall be decided once for all after affording reasonable opportunity to lead evidence. In that premise, I am of the considered view that the court below has erred in dismissing the petition. Consequently, I.A. No. 1292 of 2009 stands allowed. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed subject, however, to the condition of the petitioner paying costs quantified at Rs.2,000/- to the respondent. Since the suit is of the year 2003, the court below is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. __________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed January 28, 2011 MAS