THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1272 OF 2009 2nd September 2009 Between: 1. Smt.P.Kusuma, W/o.Nagaraju, 50 years, Occ.Private Service, R/o.H.No.I.S.No.19, Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad. And two others. …PETITIONERS AND 1. S.Hanumantha Rao, S/o.S.Venkaiah, 57years, Occ.Business, R/o.6-1-495, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. And two others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1272 of 2009 ORDER: The respondents filed O.S.No.479 of 2001 in the Court of the X Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the petitioners for the relief of perpetual injunction. The affidavit-in-lieu of chief examination was filed way back in the year 2004. For one reason or the other, the matter underwent quite a large number of adjournments. Applications came to be filed by the parties for various reliefs. The net result is that the evidence on behalf of the respondents was closed on 17.12.2003 on the ground that they did not report ready. The suit was listed for the evidence of the petitioners herein on 22.12.2008. However, on the ground that they are not ready on that day, the matter was reserved for judgment. The petitioners filed I.A.No.99 of 2009 with a prayer to reopen the defendants’ evidence. Through its order dated 25.02.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. A perusal of the extract of A-Diary relating to the suit discloses that almost 100 adjournments were granted on one pretext or the other. The crucial is the one that took place on 17.12.2008. On that day, the evidence on behalf of the respondents herein, i.e., the plaintiffs, was closed, since they did not report ready. The suit was directed to be posted on 22.12.2008 for the evidence of the petitioners. On that day, the matter was heard and reserved for judgment. It is not as if the petitioners dodged the matter in the context of adducing their evidence. Recording of the evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs was spread over for a period of at least four years, whereas the evidence of the petitioners herein was closed just on one day. Such an approach cannot be countenanced. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. It is directed that the petitioners shall be ready with their evidence by the next date of hearing and conclude the same within two adjournments. In any case if there is default on the part of the petitioners, it shall be open for the trial Court to close their evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ (L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J) 2nd September 2009 RRB