HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY C.R.P.No.3933 of 2011 Date: September 30, 2011 Between: M/s.Kapil Chit Funds Pvt. Ltd., Warangal Branch, rep. by its Authorized Signatory Mr.V.Kiran … Petitioner And T.Veera Swamy, S/o.Ilaiah, and 9 others … Respondents Order: The petitioner, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.550 of 2007, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, filed for recovery of money, has filed this civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved of the order dated 10.06.2011 passed in I.A.No.566 of 2010 in the said suit. The aforesaid I.A. was filed by the petitioner under Order VII Rule 14(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to reopen the suit for adducing additional evidence and for filing certain documents executed by the respondent-defendant No.1 in his favour. The respondent-defendant No.1 filed counter in the said I.A., stating that the documents sought to be filed were forged and fabricated and that the application was filed only to drag on the proceedings. The Court below, by recording reasons and referring to a decision of this Court, rejected the application of the petitioner. Hence this revision petition. It is to be noticed that even in the affidavit filed in support of the application, sufficient reasons have not been assigned by the petitioner for not filing the documents in question at an earlier point of time and as to why such documents could not be filed along with the plaint itself. Further, it is not in dispute that evidence on both sides is closed and the suit is at the stage of arguments, hence, any direction at this stage to reopen the suit for further evidence and for receiving the documents in question, will certainly prejudice the case of respondents-defendants. In view of the reasons recorded by the Court below, I see no ground to interfere with the impugned order, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) September 30, 2011 MRR