THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3214 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 06.07.2000 passed in I.A.No.40 of 2009 in O.P.No.6 of 2008 on the file of A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Warangal. The first respondent filed election O.P. to set aside the election of the petitioners, as directors of Bhongir Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society (for short ‘the Society’), on the ground that the first petitioner was due to the other Cooperative Societies and insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, he is doing business and is member of the same Society and, as such, they are disqualified to be elected as directors of the Society. After closure of the evidence of the petitioners, they filed the present application to reopen their evidence so as to examine one Sri K.Anjaiah, who is presently working at Siricilla, Karimnagar District. By the impugned order, the learned Judge rejected the application holding that no valid reasons were assigned to examine the proposed witness and that it was filed at a belated stage only to stall the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the witness sought to be examined was an Official looking after the affairs of the Society during the period of election, and as such, he is a necessary witness because he is well acquainted with the relevant rules and circulars, which were in force at that time. Except stating, in the affidavit filed in support of the application, that the said K. Anjaiah, official in the Cooperative Department, worked as an Assistant Director in the Nalgonda District during the period of elections held to the Cooperative Society and he is well acquainted with the rules and procedures under the A.P. Coopertive Societies Act, no other reasons are assigned by the petitioners for reopening their evidence. In the absence of any reasons, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal in rejecting the application in I.A.No.40 of 2009 filed by the petitioners. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. R.SUBHASH REDDY,J Date:06.08.2009 usd