THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.326 of 2010 Date: 05-02-2010 Between Madhira Jamayamma … Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff and 1. Bobburi Sujatha and 4 others … Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.326 of 2010 Oral Order: Heard Sri Kiran Tirumalasetti, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The revision is directed against the order and decretal order dated 27-01-2010 passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.27 of 2010 in A.T.C.No.13 of 2002 filed for reopening the petitioner’s side evidence in order to adduce further evidence. 3. The petitioner herein is the tenant and the respondents are the landlords in the ATC before the Court below. 4. From a reading of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner filed the present ATC seeking a declaration that she is the cultivating tenant of the suit schedule property. She was examined as P.W.1. The matter was being posted for adducing for further evidence on behalf of the petitioner and it appears that in spite of several opportunities given to the petitioner to adduce further evidence, the petitioner did not avail the same. It is noticed by the Court below that the docket orders show that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce further evidence. Therefore, further evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed on 16-11-2009 and the matter was posted for respondents’ evidence and it also appears further that R.W.1 was also examined and she was cross-examined also by the petitioner. 5. The above facts show that no protest was made by the petitioner when her further evidence was closed and the matter was posted for the evidence of the respondents nor any objection was raised, before R.W.1 was being examined and on the contrary, the petitioner had cross-examined R.W.1 also. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner shows that she was not keen about the earlier orders passed by the Court below in closing her further evidence and furthermore, having cross-examined R.W.1, it is not for the petitioner to file the present application. The conduct on the part of the petitioner cannot be appreciated and the Court below had rightly put all facts on record before dismissing the interlocutory application filed by the petitioner. 6. For the foregoing, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Court below. 7. In the result, the revision is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 05th February, 2010. Ak