THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4044 OF 2008 DATED: 01-02-2011 Between: Valluri Satyanarayana. .... PETITIONER And Gaddamadugu Vikram Kumar & another. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 21.07.2008, in I.A.No.1068 of 2008 in I.P.No.44 of 2005 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein for reopening the evidence to enable him to adduce further evidence, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the 1st respondent, though served with notice. Perused the records. 3. Petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent in I.P.No.44 of 2005 filed by the 1st respondent herein. During the course of enquiry, on 06.12.2007, the evidence of the petitioner in I.P.No.44 of 2005 was closed and the 1st respondent in the said I.P. reported ‘no evidence’ and the matter was coming up for the evidence on behalf of the petitioner, who is the 2nd respondent. An Advocate- commissioner was ultimately appointed to record the evidence of the petitioner-2nd respondent in the I.P. and his witnesses. The evidence of the petitioner– 2nd respondent was recorded, but no other evidence was adduced on his behalf and thereafter the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, petitioner-2nd respondent filed I.A.No.1068 of 2008 for reopening the evidence to enable him to adduce further evidence. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was only intending to drag on the matter. 4. In similar circumstances and in a related I.P.No.45 of 2005, between the same parties, this Court by order, dated 05.12.2008, in C.R.P. No.4021 of 2008 set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter for fresh disposal on the ground that the lower Court did not record any finding regarding the allegation that the petitioner was bedridden due to fever. Instead of remanding the matter, it is considered in the present case that the petitioner can be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence on his behalf, so that there can be effective and substantial adjudication of the dispute. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and the petitioner–2nd respondent is directed to be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence on his behalf on a date fixed by the trial Court and in the event of the petitioner failing to adduce further evidence on that date, his right to lead further evidence shall stand forfeited. 5. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above direction. Interim stay granted on 26-09-2008 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st February, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within three days. B/o Tsy/Ksp