THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3797 and 3823 of 2010 Common order: These revisions are misconceived. They are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the two orders, both dated 26-7-2010 in I.A.Nos. 626 and 652 of 2010 respectively, in O.S.No. 26 of 2002. The petitioners herein are defendants 5 and 6 in the suit. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein for partition of the suit schedule property. The evidence was closed on 9-7-2010 and when the suit was posted for arguments, the revision petitioners filed I.A.No. 652 of 2010 to reopen the trial of the suit for recording further evidence and I.A.No.626 of 2010 for cross- examination of P.Ws.1 and 2. Admittedly, the revision petitioners were impleaded as defendants on their application for being impleaded claiming right to the suit schedule property under a will dated 14-1-2003. I.A.Nos. 626 and 652 of 2010 were dismissed by the court below on the ground that though the petitioners did not come on record by the time PW1 was examined and cross-examined in the suit, later they had filed I.A.No. 842 of 2009 which was allowed on contest on 6-11- 2009 and pursuant thereto PW1 was recalled and was cross- examined by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein on 17-11- 2009 and thereafter the parties adduced evidence and the evidence was also closed and the suit is posted for arguments. The court below rejected as misconceived the plea of the petitioners for recall of P.Ws.1 and 2 as they could not properly instruct their counsel with regard to cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 on some material aspects. Sri Subrahmanya Narsusu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners would contend in addition to what was unsuccessfully urged before the court below, that while there appears a justification for the court below in rejecting the application of the petitioners in so far as recall of P.W.1 is concerned (since he had been examined and cross-examined after the petitioners had come on record as defendants in the suit) there is no such justification for rejecting their application, for recall of PW2. From the affidavits filed in support of the applications I.A.Nos. 626 and 652 of 2010, it is apparent that the petitioners did not plead that PW2 was also examined and cross-examined before the revision petitioners had come on record in the suit, nor is there any averment as to when PW2 was examined and why after the examination and cross- examination of PW2, the present applications are filed, for P.W.2’s recall and cross-examination. As the petitioners were filing applications for reopening the trial and for cross-examination of witnesses when the evidence on record was closed and the suit was coming up for arguments, the pleadings must disclose clearly and specifically with adequate particularity, the circumstances which justify the reopening of the suit which is pending for eight years now. Litigation is a solemn enteprise and cannot be pursued without due diligence. The affidavits filed in support of I.A.No.626 and 652 of 2010 are totally bald in this respect and did not rightly commend acceptance by the court below and the applications were rightly rejected. This court discerns no error in the application of law or in the exercise of discretion by the court below, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. These revision petitions are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 23rd September, 2010. GRR