THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2557 and 3278 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 8 filed O.S.No.565 of 2005 in the Court of the XII Additional Senior Civil Judge, (F.T.C.), City Civil Court, Secunderabad against respondent Nos.1 and 2 for recovery of certain amount. The trial of the suit commenced and the recording of evidence on behalf of the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 8 (plaintiffs) and respondent Nos.1 and 2 was concluded and the matter was coming up for arguments. At that stage, the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 8 filed I.A.No.156 of 2010 with a prayer to reopen the evidence of P.W.3 and I.A.No.569 of 2009 with a prayer to issue summons to one Sri P.Venugopala Rao, Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank, Bidar Branch. The applications were resisted by respondent Nos.1 and 2. The trial Court dismissed the I.As., through separate orders, dated 30.04.2010 and 1.02.2010, respectively. Hence, these two revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The suit filed by the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 8 has progressed to a substantial extent and it is at the stage of arguments. The applications were filed with a prayer to reopen the evidence and the trial Court did not accede to that request. The defendants in a suit adduce their evidence taking into account the purport of the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs. If the evidence is to be reopened at the instance of the plaintiffs, the very purport of evidence, which is already recorded, gets changed or unsettled. Law does not prohibit reopening of evidence. However, a strong case is to be made out for this purpose. The affidavit filed in support of the application must state the reasons that warrant reopening of the evidence as well as gist of the evidence, which the concerned party proposes to adduce. In the instant case, the affidavits filed in support of the respective applications are silent, vague and abstract. The evidence cannot be reopened just for asking of it. Unless the reasons for making the request for reopening of the evidence are stated, the Court would not be in a position to decide whether or not to accede to the request. Further, the opposite party has to guess as to the evidence that is proposed to be adduced after reopening. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the orders under revisions. Hence, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. It is, however, made clear that it shall be open to the petitioner to file applications, duly indicating the reasons and if such applications are filed, they shall be considered by the trial Court on their own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:30.08.2010 Note: Issue cc in one week. (B/o) kdl