THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1601 of 2011 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.312 of 2005 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri against the petitioner and his father-in-law-D.1, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died. The recording of evidence was concluded, arguments were heard and it was reserved for judgment. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.No.740 of 2010 with a prayer to reopen the suit to enable him to file certain documents. The I.A. was preceded by I.A.No.1435 of 2008 for condonation of delay in filing documents. The said I.A was dismissed on merits on 19.01.2009. The trial Court dismissed I.A.No.740 of 2010 through order, dated 01.03.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The suit is of the year 2005 and it was reserved for judgment. The petitioner wanted the trial Court to reopen the suit to enable him to file certain documents. It has already been mentioned that the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the documents was dismissed and the order in the I.A. became final. In case, the petitioner wanted to adduce any further evidence, he ought to have taken necessary steps in the right earnest. He waited till the arguments were concluded and came forward with the present application. Irrespective of the stage, whenever an application is filed requesting the Court to reopen the evidence, for the purpose of adducing further evidence, the party has to satisfy the Court on certain aspects. The nature of further evidence, which the party intends to adduce, must be stated. Secondly, if any documents are proposed to be filed, the description thereof must be furnished. Thirdly, the party must explain as to why he did not adduce such evidence or file the documents, at the relevant stage and how he was prevented. In the instant case, not a word was said about these three aspects. The trial Court was left with no alternative, except to dismiss the application. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 01.07.2011 Jsu THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.1601 of 2011 Date: 01.07.2011 JSU