THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.1322 of 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 13.12.2007 passed in I.A.No.505 of 2007 in O.S.No.776 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court (Fast Track Court), Ranga Reddy District. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein, as plaintiff, laid the suit O.S.No.776 of 2002 before the Court below, for specific performance of the agreement of sale entered into by him and the defendant, the respondent herein. When the suit is coming for arguments after both parties adduced their evidence, the petitioner filed the present I.A., seeking to reopen the evidence on his side and permit him to examine one P. Venkatesh as witness on his behalf, and the reason assigned by the petitioner for not producing the said Venkatesh during the relevant point of time was the sickness of the proposed witness. Respondent-defendant resisted the same by filing counter. The Court below, after detailed consideration of the matter, holding that there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner to grant the relief prayed for, dismissed the petition, by the impugned order dated 13.12.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material available on record. As can be seen from the impugned order, after the petitioner- plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, the matter underwent four adjournments for further evidence on his behalf, but as he did not produce further evidence in spite of granting ample time, the evidence on his side was closed on 21.07.2006 and the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence. At that stage, the petitioner filed an application seeking to permit him to examine one more witness on his behalf and, on the Court according permission, he filed the affidavit in lieu of chief- examination of P.W.2, but, as P.W.2 was continuously absent for cross-examination in spite of the matter being adjourned for sufficient number of times, his evidence was eschewed. Thereafter, the defendant adduced her evidence and the suit was posted for arguments on 10.11.2006. Therefrom, the suit is being adjourned from time to time for arguments and, at that stage, the petitioner came up with the present I.A. seeking to reopen the evidence on his side so as to enable him to examine one P.Venkatesh as his witness. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner was not diligent in producing the oral evidence on his behalf at the relevant point of time and filed the present petition, at the stage of arguments, only to drag on the proceedings in the suit, which is of the year 2002. The Court below, having rightly observed the same, held that the petitioner-plaintiff did not file any application to reopen the evidence on his side, even after the suit is posted for the evidence of the defendant on 20.09.2006 or at least after the suit is posted for arguments on 10.11.2006, that there is no evidence to show how long the proposed witness fell sick and, thus, there are no bona fides on the part of the petitioner-plaintiff to grant the relief prayed for. I am of the opinion that the impugned order is a reasoned order passed by the Court below, viewing the matter in right perspective, and I see no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith. The civil revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 21st December, 2009 IBL