HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 5014 OF 2009 Friday, the thirtieth day of October, Two Thousand and Nine Between M/s. A.P. Co-Operative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad, Rep. By Dr.T.Radha Petitioner AND M/s. Sri Sai Sudha Agencies, Karkhana, Secunderabad, Rep. By its Proprietor Sri P.Suresh and another. Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 5014 OF 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 05.08.2009 passed by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in I.A. No. 1916 of 2009 in O.S. No. 467 of 2006 dismissing the petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reopening the petitioner’s evidence for leading further evidence. The petitioner Federation filed the above suit against the respondents for recovery of money. It is case of the petitioner that due to oversight they did not file the entire ledger in respect of the business transactions with the respondents with effect from 1.4.1994 to the date of last payment, inasmuch as the person who was prosecuting the proceedings on behalf of the petitioner did hot have complete knowledge. The case of the respondents before the court below is that the petitioner’s witness PW-1 was examined as long back as in the month of July, 2008 and when the case is coming up for defence evidence, the plea of the petitioner that due to oversight they could not file the entire ledger, cannot be accepted. No plausible reason is forthcoming for not filing the document and the defence that the person who was prosecuting the proceedings did not have complete knowledge by itself is not a ground to allow the petitioner to file documents at such a belated stage. The court below on a consideration of the material, dismissed the petition by the order impugned. Hence, the present revision petition by the plaintiff. The court below observed that PW-1 being plaintiff’s witness was well acquainted with the facts of the case and therefore the version in the affidavit of the petitioner herein that the person who was prosecuting the proceedings earlier did not have completed knowledge, cannot be accepted. The petitioner having examined PW1 as its witness as long back as in the month of July, 2008 itself, is now precluded from contending that he did not have the complete knowledge about the documents i.e. entire ledger in respect of the business done with the respondents from 1.4.1994 till the date of last payment. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not find any illegality or irregularity warranting interference in the impugned order. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari October 30, 2009 Copy within a week //BO// MAS