THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6043 and 6045 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.6045 of 2009 arises out of the order dated 28.10.2009 in I.A.No.233 of 2009 in O.S.No.41 of 2002 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the I.A. filed by the petitioners/defendants seeking to reopen their evidence was allowed subject to deposit of suits costs by 11.11.2009. C.R.P.No.6043 of 2009 arises out of the order dated 11.11.2009 in I.A.No.233 of 2009 in O.S.No.41 of 2002 on the file of V Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the I.A. filed by the petitioners/defendants seeking to reopen their evidence was dismissed by the Court below on the ground that the order dated 28.10.2009 was not complied with by them. The respondent herein/plaintiff, filed the suit against the petitioners herein/defendants, for recovery of money. It seems though the suit came up for petitioners/defendants’ side evidence on 13.03.2008, 20.03.2008, 28.03.2008 and finally 31.03.2008, they failed to attend the Court and even their counsel failed to represent the matter and therefore, the Court below closed the petitioners/defendants’ side evidence. Then, the petitioners/defendants filed I.A.No.233 of 2009 for reopening their evidence. The Court below on 28.10.2009, allowed the I.A. subject to deposit of suit costs by 11.11.2009. On 11.11.2009, since the petitioners/defendants failed to comply with the condition imposed on 28.10.2009, the Court below dismissed the I.A. on that day itself. Though the petitioners/defendants’ side evidence was closed as they failed to attend the Court when the suit was coming up for their evidence, on their application for reopening the evidence, the Court below gave an opportunity to them subject to payment of suit costs, but they failed to comply with the said condition. Taking into consideration all these facts, the Court below, in my view rightly, dismissed the I.A. and therefore, the impugned orders do not warrant interference. Accordingly, the both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.V. RAMANA, J 24th December, 2010 GHN