THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3248 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order, dated 18.06.2010 passed in I.A.No.660 of 2010 in O.S.No.543 of 2004 by the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit filed for recovery of possession. On their behalf, P.W.1 was examined and in lieu of chief examination of P.Ws.2 and 3, their affidavits were filed. But, however, the petitioners failed to produce those persons for cross-examination. In view of the same, without taking into account the affidavits filed by the petitioners on behalf of P.Ws.2 and 3, the evidence was closed and the defendant’s evidence was also started. On behalf of the defendant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and their evidence was closed as early as on 21.07.2009. When the matter is coming up for arguments, I.A.No.660 of 2010 was filed to reopen the case to lead further evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs. The Court below by the impugned order while recording a finding that if the petition is allowed, it will cause prejudice to the case of the defendant, rejected the application. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners want to produce other witnesses but not P.Ws.2 and 3. In spite of the same, the Court below has not considered. In this case, it is to be noticed that after closure of evidence of the plaintiffs, defendant’s evidence was started and closed as early as on 21.07.2009. At this stage, if further evidence is allowed on behalf of the plaintiffs, it will certainly cause prejudice to the case of the defendant. Further, when the matter is coming up for arguments, at this belated stage, I.A.No.660 of 2010 was filed. In view of the reasons stated above and the findings recorded by the Court below, I do not find any illegality, which warrants interference by this Court in the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th AUGUST, 2010. kvni