THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5925 of 2008 ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 24.12.2008 in I.A. No.486 of 2008 in O.S. No.16 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 3A read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to reject the chief affidavit of the plaintiff, was allowed, on the ground that the earlier application filed by the petitioner herein, who is plaintiff, to examine himself as a witness was rejected and the same was confirmed by this Court by order dated 5.8.2008 in C.R.P. NO.1218 of 2008 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff contended that after dismissal of the earlier C.R.P., the defendants filed an application to recast the issues and the said petition was allowed, and in pursuance of the said order, an additional issue with regard to adverse possession has been framed by the trial Court, and thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the chief affidavit, which was rejected solely on the ground that the earlier petition for the same prayer was dismissed and thereby the chief-affidavit was eschewed from consideration, and hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants opposed the same on the ground that as the earlier application for the self-same prayer was dismissed, the trial Court rightly allowed this application and rejected the chief-affidavit, and hence, he prayed to dismiss the revision. 4. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit. He has got right to let in evidence, but that has to be exercised before commencement of evidence on behalf of the defendants. Admittedly, he has not taken any permission from the Court to examine the other witnesses when on certain issue burden lies on the defendants. So, such permission is not taken by the petitioner. In view of the order passed by this Court in C.R.P. No.1218 of 2008, ordinarily, the order of the trial court would not have been interfered with. But, considering the change of circumstances in the case viz. framing of additional issue, the trial court ought to have given permission to both parties to let in evidence with reference to the additional issue. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. It is made clear that both parties shall let in evidence only with reference to the additional issue framed. Since the suit is of the year 2002, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. No costs. --------------------- (K.C.Bhanu, J.) 06.12.2010 DRK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5925 of 2008 06.12.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5925 of 2008 06.12.2010 Between: M.V.Suryanarayana …Petitioner And B.Sarojini & another …Respondents