THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2886 of 2009 Date:24.11.2009 Between: Muddada Apparao. ..Petitioner. and Yalla Krishnavani. ..Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2886 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam, in I.A.No.542 of 2008 in O.S.No.232 of 2007 dated 22.12.2008 seeking to have the matter reopened for further evidence on the petitioner’s side. The suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff was for partition of plaint A to C schedule properties into two equal shares and to deliver one such share to him along with future mesne profits. When the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner-defendant, who is said to be the father of the respondent-plaintiff, contended that he had some more witnesses to examine and requested the Court to reopen the matter for adducing further evidence on his side. The Court below observed that on 20.11.2008, when D.W.2 was examined, the Counsel for the petitioner-defendant had reported that there was no further evidence on their behalf and, based on such representation, the petitioner-defendant’s evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. Thereafter the matter suffered two adjournments and, on the third adjournment, the present I.A. was filed to reopen the matter for adducing further evidence on behalf of the petitioner-defendant. The Court below observed that while generally the parties are at liberty to adduce evidence on their behalf at any stage of the proceedings before pronouncement of the judgment, in the present case, when evidence of both parties was closed and the matter was coming up for arguments, where one of the parties sought to reopen the matter for adducing further evidence it was their duty to furnish reasons for their inability to adduce evidence earlier. The Court below noted that, except stating that the petitioner-defendant had some other witnesses to examine, no reason was given as to why he could not adduce evidence earlier when it was only on the basis of the representation made on behalf of the petitioner-defendant that the matter was posted for arguments. Smt. Shahina Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, contends, placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Assn. Vs. Union of India[1] and of this Court in Dasu Jaya Vani vs. Bala Seethapathi[2], that the Court below had erred in refusing to grant permission to the petitioner-defendant to adduce further evidence, more so when the suit was of the year 2007 and it was not as if the Court below was of the view that the petitioner- defendant’s endeavour was to drag on proceedings. Sri P.Veera Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, would submit that the suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff, the daughter of the petitioner-defendant, seeking partition of the suit schedule properties, that the petitioner-defendant was bent upon denying her rightful share and that the present petition filed by him was based on a vague affidavit and was, obviously, only to drag on proceedings. As noted by the Court below, it is open to a party to examine whomsoever he or she intends to examine, even at the stage of the arguments. While the finding recorded by the Court below that it was on the representation of the petitioner-defendant’s counsel that the matter was posted for arguments, and that the affidavit was delightfully vague, cannot be faulted, ends of justice would be met if a specific time frame is fixed for the petitioner-defendant to examine any witness he chooses to examine on his behalf. The petitioner-defendant shall examine such witnesses, whom he desires to examine, within a period of one month from today on condition of payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the respondent-plaintiff within a period of one week from today. If the petitioner-defendant fails to deposit costs with the Court below within the stipulated time of one week, or in case he fails to complete examination of the witnesses within the stipulated period of one month, it is open to the Court below to post the matter for arguments and pass final orders in the suit in accordance with law within a period of two months thereafter. Costs, if deposited within the stipulated period, shall be paid by the Court below to the respondent-plaintiff. The order dated 22.12.2008 in I.A.No.542 of 2008 in O.S.No.232 of 2007 is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the above observations and directions. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ (RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J) 24th November, 2009 GHN [1] (2005) 6 SCC 344 [2] 2003(2) ALT 284