THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2592 of 2011 (Dated :21-10-2011) Between: Mekala Venkata Subbaiah having died pendantalite his LRs ….…Petitioners. A n d Mondem Narayana and others. ….…Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2592 of 2011 ORDER: 1. This revision is directed against the order dated 27.04.2011 passed in I.A.No.719 of 2011 in O.S.No.72 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 151 of CPC. 2. The petitioners are plaintiffs and whereas the respondents are defendants in O.S.No.72 of 2006. Mekala Venkata Subbaiah filed O.S.No.72 of 2006 against Mondem Narayana and five others seeking declaration of his title over the suit property marked as ‘F E E1 H G F’ of the plaint plan apart from other ancillary reliefs. Pending trial, Mekala Venkata Subbaiah died and petitioners 2 to 9 came on record as per orders in I.A.No.631 of 2008, dated 19-03-2009. The petitioners/plaintiffs adduced evidence on their behalf. Their evidence came to be closed on 15-02-2011. When the suit came up for evidence on behalf of the defendants, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.719 of 2011 to reopen the suit for examination of witnesses on their behalf. The petitioner No.2-Mekala Satyanarayana has sworn to the affidavit filed in support of the application. It is stated in the affidavit that commissioner and surveyor are required to be examined as witnesses on their behalf as they are material witnesses to substantiate their plea. Para No.3 of the affidavit filed in support of the application reads as hereunder: “I further submit that due to the bonafide mistake on my part, it happened that my side evidence was closed by this Hon'ble Court on 15-02-2011 and posted for defendants’ evidence. I have to examine on my behalf and on behalf of the other petitioners, the commissioner and the surveyor if available besides two other witnesses who were not then available I will examine them immediately without asking any further adjournment on my side, if this petition is allowed by this Hon'ble Court. I submit that if the above stated witnesses are not examined on behalf of the plaintiffs/petitioners, myself and other petitioners will be put to irreparable loss and injury.” 3. The respondents/defendants filed counter resisting the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties and on considering the material brought on record, proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 27-04-2011. Hence this application. 4. Notice to the respondents came to be ordered on 26-07-2011. The petitioners were directed to take out notice to the respondents and file proof of service. The petitioners sought permission to take out notice to the respondents through the counsel appeared on their behalf in the trial Court. Permission as sought for by the petitioners came to be granted on 07-09-2011. The petitioners took out notice to the respondents through counsel appeared on their behalf in the trial Court. Despite service being effected on the respondents through counsel appeared on their behalf, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned in the revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners could not examine the commissioner and surveyor because of their non-availability at the relevant point of time. A further submission has been made that examination of two other witnesses is essential to substantiate the plea of the petitioners. 7. As could be seen from the material placed on record the evidence on behalf of the petitioners came to be closed on 15-02-2011. The petitioners moved I.A.No.719 of 2011 on 31-03-2011. No valid reasons have been assigned for non-examining the commissioner and surveyor before 15-02-2011. It is not the case of the petitioners that they made efforts to examine the commissioner and surveyor, but because of their non-availability, their efforts proved to be futile. In the absence of any reasonable explanation for non-examining the commissioner and surveyor prior to 15-02-2011, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:21.10.2011 mrb