THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 5796 of 2006 Date of order: 13.8.2010 Between: Gantela Venkaiah …Petitioner and Smt. Jerripothu Gopamma and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 5796 of 2006 ORDER: First defendant in O.S.No. 452 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Sathenapalli, Guntur district which was filed for declaration of title and possession is aggrieved by the order dated 4.9.2006 in IA No. 1068 of 2006 disallowing him from leading further evidence of D.Ws. 5 and 6. The petitioner/defendant No.1 alleges in IA No. 1068 of 2006 that the suit was coming up for defendants’ evidence and after failure of the defendants to adduce evidence, the defendants’ evidence was closed. The defendants, therefore, filed IA No. 1067 of 2006 for reopening of defendants’ evidence, which was allowed with a direction that the defendants should produce evidence on or before 31.8.2006. On 31.8.2006 the defendants produced an affidavit evidence of D.W.1 and filed an application under Section 148 of the Civil Procedure Code for enlargement of time. Since D.W.1 could not be cross-examined on that day, for his cross- examination the suit was posted to 1.9.2006 and on that day the defendants filed affidavit evidence of D.Ws. 2 to 4 and later on 4.9.2006 they filed the present application IA No. 1068 of 2006 requesting the court below to receive the affidavit evidence on behalf of D.Ws. 5 and 6 who were also present in the court below. The aforesaid application was rejected by the Court below under the impugned order on the ground that on the earlier date of hearing the defendants did not communicate that they intended to examine D.Ws. 5 and 6 also. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition is filed. The respondents, though served long back, as per the proof of service filed by the learned counsel for he petitioner, nobody appeared on their behalf. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that earlier when the reopening of evidence was allowed, costs of Rs.500/- was imposed which the petitioner has complied with. The petitioner has also established his bona fides by producing evidence of D.Ws 1 to 4 already. However, on 1.9.2006 when their affidavit evidence in lieu of chief-examination of D.Ws 2 to 4 were filed, D.Ws 5 and 6 were not available and within three days thereafter on 4.9.2006 the present application was filed together with affidavit evidence of D.Ws. 5 and 6. The learned counsel, therefore, states that the court below ought to have extended an opportunity to the petitioner, as no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs. I am inclined to accept the aforesaid contention, as, in any case, the evidence on behalf of the defendants is being recorded and D.Ws. 2 to 4 are yet to be cross-examined and since the affidavit evidence of D.Ws 5 and 6 in lieu of chief-examination is already filed, no prejudice would be caused to the plaintiffs to cross-examine them also along with D.Ws 2 to 4. The Court below, therefore, adopted a pedantic approach and denied opportunity to the petitioner. I am, therefore, inclined to set aside the impugned order and allow IA No. 1068 of 2006 as prayed for. The revision petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 13.8.2010 KR