HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.395 OF 2008 Date 14-12-2010 Between: Pakkurthi Dharma Raju and another. …Petitioner. And: Sappa Nooka Raju. ……Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.395 OF 2008 ORDER: This C.R.P. is filed against the orders dated 17-12-2007 in I.A.No.1503 of 2007 in O.S.No.100 of 2002 which is an application to reopen the suit and for recalling of P.W.1 and also to receive some documents in order to substantiate the case of the plaintiff/petitioner. According to the case of the plaintiff, the suit was filed for declaration of his right, title over the plaint schedule property and for injunction and the Government has given Pattadar Pass Books and also the plaintiff has been exercising his right of ownership and the documents could not be produced earlier and therefore, the matter may be reopened and permission may be granted to produce the documents and examine P.W.1. The application was vehemently opposed in the lower court and also before this Court contending that the matter has been reserved for judgment and earlier also similar applications were filed and in spite of it, the plaintiff was not diligent in prosecuting the case and the reopening of the case when the matter has been reserved for judgment is against the spirit of the C.P.C. and also the decision reported in T. RAMACHANDRA MURTHY v. K. RAMA MURTHY AND OTHERS ([1]) wherein the order of the court recalling witness at the instance of one of the parties after hearing arguments and the judgment was reserved was found irregular. Assuming to be that the power of the court at that stage cannot be exercised as contended by the counsel for the petitioner, the fact remains that even at the appellate stage, the court has got every power to receive additional evidence and in such circumstances, the party cannot be found fault when an attempt was already made before the lower court to adduce the evidence and it will be further delaying the proceedings. Therefore, at most consideration of the court shall be in the interest of justice and it is well settled that the parties at the trial should be given appropriate opportunity though there may be latches which some times to be condoned and some not to be condoned because the right of any immovable properties are involved. I do not find any error in the exercise of discretion by the lower court. However, it is made clear that the Court shall not make any reopening in future and proceed to dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this C.R.P. is disposed of. No costs. _________________________________ Justice N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO Dated 14-12-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.395 OF 2008 Dated 14-12-2010 [1] AIR 1980 AP 265