IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2332 of 2010 Between: Janga Pedda Beesanna .. Revision Petitioner AND J. Venkataiah & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2332 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri V. Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/first defendant and Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs. Though respondents 3 and 4/defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.98 of 2006 were not served with the notices of the revision, as they are co- defendants whose interests are no way prejudicially effected by any orders passed herein, the Civil Revision Petition is being disposed of without their presence. 2. O.S.No.98 of 2006 is a suit for permanent injunction in which the revision petitioner/first defendant was cross-examined during trial on 19.11.2009. He did not produce his further evidence till 17.12.2009 on which his evidence was closed and the suit went on further for the evidence of defendants 2 and 3 after which, it was posted for arguments to 28.02.2010. It was after two-and-half months after the matter was posted for arguments that the first defendant came up with an application in I.A.No.104 of 2010 in O.S.No.98 of 2006 for permission to adduce further evidence alleging that his witnesses were engaged in harvesting in the earlier days due to which they could not be produced before the Court. That application was opposed by the plaintiffs stating that there was no sufficient cause or reason and harvesting is merely a lame excuse. 3. The trial Court passed the impugned order finding fault with the first defendant for keeping quiet for more than two- and-half months even after the suit was posted for arguments and he had not availed sufficient opportunity given to him. The petitioner intended to drag on the matter which cannot be permitted. 4. The dismissal of I.A.No.104 of 2010 for that reason led the first defendant to approach this Court with this revision contending that the opportunity to examine his witnesses to prove physical possession and enjoyment of the property cannot be denied for such reasons and as he had sufficient and genuine reason for not producing the witnesses earlier, the impugned order may be reversed. 5. The point for consideration is whether the first defendant should be given an opportunity to produce further evidence in the suit. 6. The suit is for a permanent injunction concerning immovable property of Ac. 2.00 and valuable rights of the parties are involved in the adjudication of the claim for permanent injunction. Though the first defendant might not have been diligent in producing his witnesses as ordered by the Court, the time that lapsed between 03.12.2009 and 11.03.2010 cannot be considered to be unjustifiably long as to deprive an opportunity to the first defendant to produce his evidence. The want of diligence and the consequential inconvenience to the other parties to the suit by the delay can be compensated by imposing appropriate terms on the first defendant and any further protraction of the trial can be prevented by fixing a time limit for the first defendant to produce his evidence. While the order of the trial Court is not ex facie unjustified, the same is being set aside in the interests of justice for the above reasons. 7. Therefore, the order in I.A.No.104 of 2010 in O.S.No.98 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Wanaparthy, dated 18.03.2010, will be set aside and the said I.A.No.104 of 2010 will be allowed on deposit of costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the credit of the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Wanaparthy, within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court. In default, the impugned order shall stand confirmed. In the event of I.A.No.104 of 2010 being allowed in terms of this order, the first defendant shall produce whatever further evidence he wishes to produce before the trial Court within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court. 8. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered, accordingly, without costs. _______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21st July, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2332 of 2010 Date: 21st July, 2011 KL