THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.3100 of 2010 Date of Order: 13-08-2010 Between: Rednam Santhamma ..Petitioner and ..Respondent Abbireddi Appanareddy The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.3100 of 2010 Oral order: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to revise the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, passed in I.A.No.412 of 2010 in O.S.No.145 of 2007, dated 29-06-2010, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant to permit her to adduce evidence has been dismissed. It is not disputed that on closure of evidence on the plaintiff’s side, when the defendant was called upon to lead evidence, she reported “no evidence” and, therefore, the evidence on her side was closed on 13-10-2009. Thereafter, when the matter was posted for arguments on 21-10-2009, the respondent/plaintiff filed a petition to reopen and recall the son of the scribe to examine as a witness, which was allowed and P.W.2 was examined on 02-03-2010. After closure of the said evidence, the petitioner herein filed the above I.A. stating that earlier there is no necessity for her to lead evidence, but in view of further evidence let in by the plaintiff, permit her to lead evidence, which was dismissed on the ground that she reported no evidence at the relevant time and did not reserve her right to lead evidence. Admittedly, after closure of the evidence and when the matter is at the stage of arguments, the respondent/plaintiff was given an opportunity to lead further evidence by reopening the matter. Though the petitioner felt that she need not be examined on the evidence let in earlier, but on respondent/plaintiff let in further evidence in the matter, she thought it necessary to lead evidence and filed the present I.A. The earlier closure of evidence by the defendant cannot preclude her to examine in the changed circumstances. The trial court ought to have permitted the defendant to adduce evidence in the light of the above changed circumstances, but failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it. In view of the same, it is a fit case to invoke supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution for permitting the defendant to lead her evidence otherwise, the same will amount to miscarriage of justice. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 29-06-2010 is set aside and I.A.No.412 of 2010 in O.S.No.145 of 2007 is allowed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 13-08-2010 Murthy/KH