THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2531 of 2010 Date:06.07.2010 Between: Palvai Ramaiah, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District. ………..Petitioner/defendant. AND Chennoori Krishna Murthy, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District. ………Respondent/ plaintiff. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2531 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 26.4.2010 passed in I.A.No.343 of 2008 in O.S.No.83 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, at Miryalaguda, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to reopen the matter; to recall P.W.1 and to mark account books along with income tax assessment. The petitioner is the defendant and whereas the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.83 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money basing on a promissory note. While P.W.1 was in the box, a suggestion was put to him that he did not possess money lending licence. After the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is closed, he moved an application being I.A.No.343 of 2008 to reopen the evidence on his side, to recall P.W.1 and to mark his account books & income tax assessment. The defendant filed counter resisting the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow the application by order dated 26.4.2010. The said order is assailed in this revision. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are laches on the part of the plaintiff in moving the application for reopening the matter and for recall of P.W.1, and, therefore, the application is liable to be dismissed in limini. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the rival contention of the parities, proceeded to allow the application. For better appreciation, I may refer to Para No.11 of the order, which reads as hereunder: “The delay is properly explained, that since the documents are stated to be with the auditor, he cannot file the same with plaint. However, the defendant had not taken a specific plea, for want of money lenders license. Still during cross-examination of P.W.1 the defendant got elicited and then, P.W.1 wants to file these documents, as such, the defendant cannot object the same. If he had not questioned said aspect, the plaintiff would not have filed these documents. As such, even though, there is no plea, in the light of the cross examination of P.W.1, I feel that, this petition is to be allowed and the plaintiff must be given a chance to lead evidence on this aspect. Accordingly, this petition is allowed.” It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that liberty may be given to the petitioner to raise an objection with regard to the admissibility of the documents as and when the documents are sought to be marked through an evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. Such liberty is always available to the petitioner. If such an objection is taken, the Court has to adjudicate the same un influenced by any observations made in the order impugned in the revision. The learned Senior Civil Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for allowing the application filed by the plaintiff. I do not see any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court in the order impugned in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. _______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:06.7.2010 mrb