THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.775 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 08.02.2010 passed in I.A.No.19 of 2010 in O.S.No.56 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge(FTC), at Mahaboobnagar, whereby and where under the learned Judge dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 151 CPC. The petitioner is the plaintiff and respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.56 of 2007. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs.3,38,786/-. Defendant filed written statement resisting the claim. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings. After closure of the defendant’s evidence, plaintiff filed I.A.No.19 of 2010 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the case to adduce further evidence with regard to marking of the cheque bearing No.629226 dated 15.10.2009. According to the petitioner-plaintiff, defendant issued the cheque pursuant to the understanding arrived at by the parties pending the suit and on presentation, it came to be dishonoured. For marking the said cheque, he filed an application to reopen the suit for further evidence. Defendant filed counter resisting the said application. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the petitioner-plaintiff failed to make out any valid ground for reopening the suit and thereby proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 08.02.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material on record. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the parties came to an understanding pending the suit and in pursuance of the said understanding, the defendant issued a cheque for Rs.3.00 lakhs and on presentation of the said cheque, it came to be dishonoured and this fact is required to be placed on record in the evidence and therefore, the petitioner sought for reopening of the suit. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order impugned in this revision. Indisputably, the events occurred after filing the suit do not form part and parcel of the pleadings of the parties. Unless the subsequent events are made as part and parcel of the pleadings by taking out necessary application, no evidence can be adduced in support of the subsequent events. Therefore, I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court and hence the C.R.P. is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:15-12-2010 Rns