IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD (3RD) DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.392 of 2011 Between: Gannavaram Pochaiah & another … Petitioners And: Chintalathana Ellavva (Died) & others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.392 of 2011 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18.01.2011 in IA No.372 of 2010 in OS No.1 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Section 151 CPC for reopen the evidence of petitioners-defendants 3 and 4 to adduce further evidence by examining the witness by name K Narsaiah, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed suit for partition of the suit property against the petitioners-D.3 and D.4 and respondents 5 to 7-D.1, D.2 and D.5. The defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. After framing necessary issues, trial of the suit was taken up and recording of evidence on both sides was also completed. The defendants examined Dws.1 to 4 and after the plaintiff adduced rebuttal evidence, as she has earlier reserved the right to do so. After closure of the evidence on both sides, arguments were heard and judgment was reserved on 06.04.2010. Then the plaintiff died and the matter was reopened suo-motu and the defendants filed additional written statement also on 24.09.2010. When the matter was again posted for arguments, the petitioners filed IA No.372 of 2010 for reopening the evidence on their side for examining the witness by name K.Narsaiah. The said application was opposed by the respondents-plaintiffs on the ground that it was intended to fill the lacuna which was pointed in the course of arguments. 4. The proposed witness is stated to be one of the attestors of the Will dated 11.01.2001 marked as Ex.B.1. The only reason mentioned for not examining the proposed witness earlier is that he was out of station. Admittedly, the matter under went several adjournments during recording of evidence of DWs.1 to 4. It is not disclosed during which period the proposed witness was out of station. The defendants evidence was commenced on 11.12.2009. Subsequently, arguments of both sides were also heard and judgment was also reserved but the matter was reopened on the ground that the plaintiff died. The present application was filed on 07.04.2010. The defendants had ample opportunity to examine the proposed witness when the trial was in progress, but they didn’t examine him. As rightly observed by the trial Court, the law protects vigilant but not the negligent. It is obvious that the present application is filed subsequent to closure of the arguments only with a view to fill the lacuna in the evidence pointed out during the course of arguments. Reopening of evidence and opportunity for further evidence, cannot be permitted for such a purpose. Absence of any satisfactory explanation for not examining the proposed witness earlier while the defendants evidence was in progress and having regard to the highly belated stage at which the present application was filed, the trial Court in its discretion has rightly dismissed the same. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon a decision in ‘Central Bank of India v. M/s Rama Granites[1]’, where in the Madras High Court held as follows: “The law is well settled that the Court has inherent power to permit the parties to produce evidence at a later stage but it is subject to satisfying the Court that such evidence was not known to them earlier or could not be produced in spite of due diligence. In the present case, it cannot be said that the evidence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner/plaintiff or could not be produced even after exercise of due diligence. The dismissal of the application on this ground is sustainable and the impugned order does not call for any interference.” 6. In a recent decision in ‘M.Lachaiah v. Madhuri Mallaiah[2]’ 2011 UPLJ 17, a similar application at the stage of arguments to reopen the evidence was held rightly dismissed. 7. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order, dismissing the application in due exercise of discretionary power of the trial court, does not warrant any interference by this court. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 03.08.2011 bss [1] AIR 2006 Madras 227 [2] 2011(1) UPLJ 17 (NRC)