THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No : 5918 of 2009 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.161 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 fort the relief of mandatory injunction and consequential perpetual injunction. The trial of the suit commenced and the 1st respondent adduced his evidence. However, the trial Court framed additional issues. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed I.A.No.522 of 2008 with a prayer to permit him to reopen the suit to enable him to adduce additional evidence. The petitioner opposed the application. Through its order, dated 03.08.2009, the trial Court allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not in dispute that after the 1st respondent adduced evidence, the trial framed additional issues. The parties have to adduce evidence, with reference to issues. This naturally leads to the conclusion that whenever additional issue is framed, the parties must be permitted to adduce evidence, with reference to that issue. The refusal to accord such permission would in fact lead to illegality. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under revision. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 18.01.2010 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No : 5918 of 2009 Date: 18.01.2010 JSU