THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2582 of 2011 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.93 of 2006 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kanigiri against the petitioners (defendants 1 and 2) and respondent Nos.2 and 3 (defendants 3 and 4) for recovery of amount on the strength of a promissory note. The recording of evidence was closed in the year 2008. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.863 of 2008 under Order 16 Rules 6 and 7 read with Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to reopen the suit to enable them to adduce further evidence. The application was dismissed on 10.03.2010. Thereafter, the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.86 of 2011 under the same provision and for the same relief. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 22.03.2011. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is a matter of record that the petitioners filed I.A.No.863 of 2008 and the same was dismissed. In case the petitioners were aggrieved by the order of dismissal, they ought to have filed a revision. Further, it would have been possible for the petitioners to file an application of this nature at a later stage, had it been a case where they came into possession of any new facts or evidence. Added to it, the affidavit is silent as to the nature of evidence to which the petitioners proposed to adduce. It is mandatory that the nature of evidence, which the parties propose by seeking reopening of the suit, is to be stated. With the closure of evidence, valuable rights accrued to the parties and they cannot be taken away just like that. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt.15.07.2011. kdl