IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD DATED: THIS the 8th day of April, 2011 PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 677 of 2010 Between: Sana Venkata Rao ..Petitioner and Abdul Khuddus and others Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 677 of 2010 O r d e r: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kaikalur in dismissing I.A.No. 441 of 2009 in O.S.No. 472 of 2003 on 8-12- 2009. 2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for possession of the suit schedule property. When the matter is coming up for arguments, he filed I.A.No. 441 of 2009 to reopen the suit and to permit him to produce a witness to substantiate his plea. On dismissal of the said I.A., the present revision is filed to revise the said order. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner/plaintiff examined, himself, as PW-1 and marked Exs A-1 to A-5. For his cross examination the case was adjourned for five times and ultimately the Commissioner was appointed to record the evidence of both sides on 5.1.2009. The Commissioner filed the report stating that PW-1 and DWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs B-1 to B-6 were marked. 4. According to the petitioner/plaintiff the scribe of Ex A-1, Kala Murali Krishna was not examined. Ex A-1 is a Will. It is not in dispute that after the commissioner filed his report on 1-4-2009, written arguments were filed on behalf of the defendants on 2.6.2009; whereas the petitioner/plaintiff took adjournments to file his written arguments and it was adjourned thrice for filing arguments on his behalf. At that stage, the above interlocutory application is filed stating that the plaintiff wants to examine the scribe of Ex A-1, Kala Murali Krishna. 5. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances, the trial court dismissed the said application following the decision of this court in Challa Rama Murthy v. Srirangam Lalitha[1] wherein it was observed that “Unless a party satisfies the court that such evidence was not within his knowledge or that he could not produce the same when he was leading his evidence, production of such evidence at a later stage is not permissible.” 6. Similarly this court in Kurakula Sanyasi (died) and others v. Bhavisetty Sankara Rao[2] held “Plaintiff filed petition after completion of trial and matter was being adjourned from time to time for arguments without assigning any reasons and the lower court permitted to re-open the matter, but the order of the lower court held that is erroneous”. The view is taken by this Court in Boddu Jalaiah v. Boddu Panduranga Rao[3] . 7. Admittedly the petitioner/plaintiff has not reserved his right to lead further evidence after the defendant closed his evidence. It is also not his case that he does not know the scribe of Ex A-1 and at no stage of the proceedings such a plea was taken by the plaintiff. In view of the above, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court warranting interference of this court. 8. In the result the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. Dated:08-04-2011. *BVS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 677 of 2010 Dated:08-04-2011. [1] 1997 (6) ALT 203 [2] 1993 (3) LS 253 [3] 2001 (2) LS 285