IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.1362 & 1361 OF 2008 Between: Smt. Attada Sanyasamma …Petitioner A n d Smt.Manju Devi and others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.1362 & 1361 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.1362 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 26.02.2008 in I.A.No.172 of 2008 in O.S.No.403 of 2004, on the file of the VII-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, under Section 151 CPC for re-opening his evidence to adduce further evidence, was dismissed. 2. C.R.P.No.1361 of 2008 is directed against the order dated 26.02.2008 in I.A.No.171 of 2008 in O.S.No.403 of 2004, on the file of the VII-Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, under Order XVI Rule 6 CPC for issuing summons to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Suryabagh Branch, Visakhapatnam, to produce certain cheques pertaining to savings account No.8067 of the petitioner for the period from 03.02.1997 to 10.07.2000, was dismissed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents in both the revisions. Perused the record. 4. The petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondents for partition of the plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for separate possession and for allotment of one such share. The respondents filed written statement contesting the suit. After settlement of necessary issues, the trial of the suit was commenced. On an application filed by the plaintiff, she was permitted to reserve her right to adduce rebuttal evidence. Accordingly the evidence of the defendant was recorded and subsequently the plaintiff’s rebuttal evidence was recorded. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after PW.1’s evidence was recorded, the evidence was closed and thereafter the petitioner filed these two applications, one for re-opening the evidence and the other for summoning the cheques from the custody of SBH, Suryabagh Branch, Visakhapatnam. 6. As seen from the impugned order, the said applications were dismissed on the ground that the matter reached the stage of arguments and there was considerable negligence on the part of the petitioner’s counsel in the case. It appears that when P.W.1’s evidence was recorded, opportunity for adducing further evidence was not sought and therefore, the evidence came to be closed. Having regard to the fact that the plaintiff is an old lady and even assuming that there was any negligence on the part of the petitioner’s counsel, as observed by the trial Court in the impugned order, the petitioner cannot be penalized for the same. 7. In the circumstances, with a view to provide a fair opportunity to the parties to place all the necessary and material evidence before the Court, it is considered that the petitioner/plaintiff may be directed to adduce further evidence by summoning the cheques from SBH, Suryabagh Branch, Visakhapatnam as prayed for. 8. In the circumstances, the impugned orders in both the civil revision petitions are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside and consequently both the applications I.A.No.172 and 171 of 2008 are allowed. Consequently, the plaintiff’s side evidence is directed to be re-opened and summons be issued to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Suryabagh Branch, Visakhapatnam, for production of the documents as prayed for. 9. In the result, both the civil revision petitions are allowed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 22nd September, 2011 Lrkm