THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2660 of 2010 Dated 20th August, 2010 Between: C. Narasimhaiah and another. …Petitioners And Kannari Siddamma and another. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K. Rajanna Counsel for respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 08.03.2010 in I.A.No.484 of 2009 in O.S.No.73 of 2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Yemmiganur. The petitioners are the defendants in the abovementioned suit filed by the respondents. During the course of the trial, P.W.1 filed his affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 16.03.2009. The case was adjourned to 23.03.2009 for P.W.1’s cross-examination. As the counsel for the petitioners was obviously not ready, the case was adjourned to 09.04.2009. As P.W.1 was not present on that day, the case was adjourned to 01.05.2009. On the said adjourned date as the petitioners were not ready, the case was adjourned to 07.05.2009 on payment of costs of Rs.50/-. On 07.05.2009, the petitioners were not present and costs were also not paid. Therefore, the Court below has recorded the cross examination of P.W.1 as ‘Nil’. Almost five months thereafter, the petitioners have come up with I.A.No.484 of 2009 for reopening of the evidence of P.W.1 to enable their counsel to cross examine P.W.1. This application having been dismissed, the petitioners filed the present revision petition. Sri K. Rajanna, learned counsel for the petitioners, made a strong bid to convince this Court that the order of the Court below is erroneous. Having carefully considered the facts noted in the order of the Court below, I am of the view that the petitioners have failed to avail the repeated opportunities presented to them to cross examine P.W.1. Apart from failing to be present on 07.05.2009 when the case was adjourned from 01.05.2009 on which date also the petitioners were not present, the petitioners have failed to pay even costs imposed. This apart, though the case was coming up for evidence of the petitioners’ from 07.05.2009 and has undergone as many as five adjournments thereafter, the petitioners have not filed an application for reopening P.W.1’s evidence. At long last, on 21.10.2009 i.e., almost five months after closing of the evidence of P.W.1, the petitioners have approached the Court below with the above application for reopening P.W.1’s evidence. From these facts, I am convinced that the petitioners have not shown any diligence whatsoever in prosecuting the case and the Court below has rightly declined to reopen the evidence of P.W.1. For the abovementioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the C.R.P., interim stay granted on 07.07.2010 is vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.3573 of 2010 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th August, 2010 GHN