THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 729 of 2011 Dated: 04.03.2011 Between: Motepalli Satyanarayana, West Godavari District. … Petitioner And Motepalli Venkateswara Rao, West Godavari District. … Respondent THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 729 of 2011 O R D E R : Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.286 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Jangareddygudem, which is filed for permanent injunction restraining the defendant/respondent herein from interfering with the plaint schedule property. The defendant contested the suit and evidence was adduced by both the parties. After the evidence was closed, and the suit was posted for arguments, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.64 of 2011 to reopen the matter and to permit him to adduce further evidence on his side. The said application is dismissed by the Court below by order dated 14.02.2011 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the plaintiff. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. The order under revision itself shows that the suit was actually posted for arguments in the year 2009 and at the instance of the plaintiff/revision petitioner the evidence was once reopened and P.W.1 was recalled by order dated 06.11.2009. However, he failed to appear before the Court and the matter underwent several adjournments till January, 2011. On 19.01.2011 his evidence was completed and his counsel reported no further evidence. Accordingly, the evidence of both parties was closed and the suit was posted for arguments. At that stage, the application was filed by the plaintiff again to reopen the evidence. As could be seen from the affidavit filed in support of the application, no satisfactory reason could be shown for seeking to reopen the evidence at that stage. Having regard to the conduct of the plaintiff in dragging on the proceedings for about two years after the reopening of the evidence on the earlier occasion, the Court below, while holding that the application was not bona fide, had declined to reopen the matter. It is to be noticed that the suit is of the year 2003 which was initially filed in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kovvur. After the suit was transferred to Jangareddygudem it was renumbered as O.S.No.286 of 2009. Since it is an identified suit and the plaintiff was already given ample opportunity to adduce evidence to substantiate his claim, the Court below had rightly dismissed the application. The said discretion exercised by the Court below warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 04 .03.2011 KLP