THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.664 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.13 of 2009 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, against the respondents for recovery of certain amount, on the strength of a promissory note. The trial of the suit commenced, and the recording of evidence was concluded. The suit is at the stage of arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1295 of 2010, under Section 115 C.P.C., with a prayer to re- open the suit, for the purpose of cross-examining a witness to the pronote, by name, C.V. Pratap. The respondents opposed the application, stating that the effort of the petitioner is only to fill the gaps in the evidence. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 04-02-2011. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard Sri Y. Kanakalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. To prove the promissory note, the petitioner has already examined a person, who figured as a witness to it. It is only after he reported to the Court, that he has no further evidence to adduce, the respondents have adduced their evidence. At the stage of arguments in the suit, the petitioner came forward with the present application. Though he pleaded that the proposed witness is an attestor, it appears to be a misnomer. It is only for certain specific documents, that the law makes the attestor mandatory. Promissory note, such as Wills, is not one such document. That, however, is a different aspect. It is true that Courts would re-open the mattes and enable the parties to adduce further evidence, if a case is made out. The petitioner has already examined an individual, who figured as a witness to the promissory note. Nothing prevented him from examining the other person also. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., not a word is said, as to how the petitioner was handicapped from examining Mr.C.V. Pratap, in the course of his evidence. With the conclusion of evidence, valuable rights accrue to the parties, and each party can take advantage of the lacuna, if any, in the evidence of the other party. If permission is accorded to the parties, at the stage of arguments; to adduce further evidence, the very significance of the evidence would be lost. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter, and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The C.R.P. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.07-03-2011. KO