THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1067 OF 2009 13TH OCTOBER, 2009 BETWEEN: GENERAL MANAGER, MHSRTC, MUMBAI .. PETITIOER AND VELAMPALLY NAGA LAXMI AND OTHER .. RESPONDENTS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1067 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 28.1.2009 passed in I.A.No.119 of 2009 in O.P.No.192 of 2005 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet, whereby and where under the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under section 151 CPC to reopen the case for adducing further evidence on its behalf. Back ground facts of the case in nutshell leading to filing of this revision are: One Vempally Veerendranath died in a road accident. His wife V.Nagalaxmi and minor son V.Kumar Sai Mani filed O.P.No.192 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.25.00 lakhs. V.Sathyavathi, mother of the deceased has been shown as R2 in O.P.No.192 of 2005. It appears that mother of the deceased filed O.P.No.147 of 2006 on the file of Principal District Judge, Khammam claiming compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs. While so, the wife of the petitioner filed Tr.CMP.No.218 of 2007 seeking transfer of O.P.No.147 of 2006 from the file of Principal District Judge, Khammam to the file of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet for being heard along with O.P.No.192 of 2005. The said Tr.CMP came to be allowed on 17.8.2009. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.119 of 2009 in O.P.No.192 of 2005 under section 151 of CPC to reopen the case for the purpose of adducing evidence on its behalf. The learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause to reopen the matter by the order impugned in this revision. Hence, this revision by the petitioner. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 20.3.2009. Despite notice being served, R2 did not choose appear in person or through a counsel. This revision is taken up for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel for the parties at the admission stage. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and 1st respondent. The factual aspect of Tr.CMP.No.218 of 2007 being allowed is not contradicted by learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent herein. Pending the Tr.CMP the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.119 of 2009 for reopening the O.P.No.192 of 2005 for further evidence. The learned II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet dismissed the application on the ground that the petitioner filed the application at a belated stage. As on this day, Tr.CMP.No.218 of 2007 has been allowed on 17.8.2009. Therefore, both the OPs are required to be considered together. Viewing from that angle, the application filed by the petitioner for reopening the case for further evidence cannot be said to be at a belated stage. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed at the stage of admission and consequently I.A.No.119 of 2009 on the file of II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda at Suryapet stands allowed. 13th October, 2009. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) tnb THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1067 OF 2009 13TH OCTOBER, 2009