HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4605, 4347 AND 4365 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Respondent filed O.S.No.1 of 2000 against the petitioner, in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Aluru to the relief of perpetual injunction in respect f the suit schedule property, an agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.11 cents. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. The petitioner filed A.S. No.64 of 2007 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni. The appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration. 2. It is stated that the parties have adduced additional evidence after remand. The evidence in the matter was closed on 04-11-2009 and the matter was posted for arguments. At this stage, the petitioner filed three applications viz., I.A. Nos.386, 370 and 369 of 2009 for the reliefs of reopening of the evidence, to recall her as witness and to permit her to file the proceedings dated 20-02-2009 as exhibit. The applications were opposed by the respondent. Through separate orders, dated 16-08-2010, the learned trial Judge dismissed the applications. Hence, these revisions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings dated 20-02-2009 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni are in respect of the suit schedule property itself and that it would have direct bearing upon the dispute in the suit. He contends that being an illiterate, the petitioner did not bring the development, leading to passing of orders dated 20-02-2009 to the notice of her counsel, and soon after it was felt that they are relevant, steps has been initiated. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after remand of the matter by the lower appellate Court, not only the parties were permitted to adduce the additional evidence, but also the matter was reopened twice at the instance of the petitioner. He contends that the petitioner is trying her level best to protract the proceedings. 5. The suit was filed way back in the year 2000 and it was disposed of by the trial Court in the year 2007. The lower appellate Court remanded the matter with certain directions. After remand, the parties were permitted to adduce additional evidence. The record discloses that the trial Court has shown indulgence to the petitioner and reopened the evidence on two occasions, viz., on 14-10-2009 and 21-10-2009. For the 3rd time, she wanted the evidence to be reopened. 6. The trial Court assigned cogent reasons, while dismissing the applications. Strictly speaking the orders impugned did not warrant interference. One fact that, however, weighs with the Court is that the petitioner is an illiterate and the documentary evidence that is sought to be adduced, would have a direct bearing upon the dispute between the parties, since it relates to the suit schedule property. The petitioner can be given a last opportunity with certain conditions. 7. Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the orders under revision are set aside, and the I.As. are allowed on condition that: a) The petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs.500/- to the respondent, by the next date of hearing in the suit. b) On compliance with that, the trial Court shall reopen the evidence, and permit the petitioner to file the document in question as evidence. She shall be ready for cross-examination on the same day. c) Under no circumstances, the petitioner shall be entitled to adduce any further oral or documentary evidence. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J November 12, 2010. Note: Issue copy in three (3) days. B/O. KTL