THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2096 of 2009 15th October 2009 Between: Akkisetty Rambabu, S/o.Rangaiah, 32 years, R/o.Survarapupalle, H/o.Ananthavaram Village, Yeddanapudi Mandal, Prakasam District. …PETITIONER AND Cherukuri Haribabu, S/o.Bapaiah, 39 years, R/o.Ramakur Village, J.Panguluru Mandal, Prakasam District. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2096 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner-defendant filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 20.02.2009 in I.A.No.80 of 2009 in O.S.No.272 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, Guntur District, wherein his application, filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to reopen the matter in order to adduce further evidence on his side, was dismissed. The suit is filed for specific performance, where the trial is almost completed and it is only after ten {10} or eleven {11} months of closing the petitioner’s side evidence, the present application has been filed. By taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below did not find favour with the request of the petitioner and dismissed the said application. Hence, the revision. Having regard to the parallel proceedings pursued under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 {“the Act” for brevity}, in I.A.No.835 of 2007 and the same being pending and disposed of on 04.06.2008, the period of delay is only an interrugnum. On a perusal of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.80 of 2009, absolutely, there is no mention about the proceedings under Section 45 of the Act. In view of the same, the statement is totally outside the very affidavit filed in support of the application, which cannot be accepted. Hence, there are no merits in the revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 15th October 2009 RRB