THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4453 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.1245 of 2002 in the Court of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada against the respondents for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The trial of the suit concluded. On behalf of the contesting defendants, namely respondent Nos.5 and 9 herein, written arguments were filed. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1109 of 2008 with a prayer to reopen the suit to enable him to adduce additional evidence. The application was opposed by the respondents. Through its order, dated 29.09.2008, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this revision. Sri V.S.R.Anjaneyulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that initially, defendant Nos.1 to 7 in the suit remained ex parte and they filed an application to set aside the ex parte order on 25.08.2006, only after the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed and in that context, reopening of the suit became imperative for adducing further evidence. Sri M.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 and 9, on the other hand, submits that the reason pleaded in the affidavit filed before the trial Court is totally different and that except stating that he wants to adduce additional evidence, the petitioner did not even mention the nature of evidence to be adduced. Recording of evidence in the suit was concluded and it is at the stage of arguments. On their part, respondent Nos.8 and 9 have submitted arguments. At that stage, the petitioner filed the I.A. with a prayer to reopen the suit. The reasons mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. are as under: “The suit is coming up for arguments on 16.09.2008. I am suffering with throat cancer, for the last about one year and as such, I could not give instructions to my Advocate by meeting him personally. I am informed that the Advocate for D.8 and D.9 has filed Memo of arguments in this suit and I am informed that on my behalf also written arguments are to be submitted by my counsel. After going through the Memo of arguments filed on behalf of D.8 and D.9, my Advocate has advised me to adduce evidence regarding the relief sought for by me, in this suit, by examining or adducing further oral evidence. After the evidence on my behalf was closed, the defendants protracted the proceedings for adducing their evidence till 26.08.2008. Only thereafter, the suit is posted for arguments. Meanwhile, myself fell sick and bed-ridden. Thus, I humbly submit that there is no negligence on my part in not filing this petition earlier.” The facts pleaded by the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, are a bit different. With the conclusion of evidence, valuable rights accrued to the respective parties. Even to adduce rebuttal evidence, specific permission of the Court is necessary. Further, in cases where the Court is convinced to permit a party to adduce evidence for the first time or to adduce additional evidence by reopening the evidence, it is necessary that the Court should know as to the aspects on which the additional evidence is to be adduced. The affidavit filed by the petitioner is silent as to the purpose for which he proposes to adduce evidence. If such prayers are accepted, the contours of the suit and the scope of the trial get altered altogether. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.06.2010. kdl