IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO : 2604 of 2009 Petition under Section ____ of CPC., to revise/against the order dated ______ in NO : of 0 on the file of the court of the Between: 1 Salana Damayanthi W/o Bhaskara Rao R/o Temburu Pathapuram Mandal Srikakulam District 2 Salana Venkataratnam W/o Dandasi R/o Vasundara Village Melipuram Mandal Srikakulam District 3 Meriabilli Prabhavathi W/o Syamasundra Rao R/o Rompivalasa Village Pathapatnam Mandal Srikakulam District ..... PETITIONER(S) AND 1 The Head Master Govt. High School Pathapatnam Village & Mandal Srikakulam District 2 The Principal Govt. Junior College Pathapatnam Village & Mandal Srikakulam District 3 The District Collector Srikakulam Srikakulam District .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.S.SUBBA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : Form-NIC-OGS/CRP{TSSB} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN C.R.P.No.2604 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: The order under challenge in this revision is the one passed in I.A.No.62 of 2009 in O.S.No.24 of 2002 dated 25.3.2009 by the Junior Civil judge, Pathapatnam, Srikakulam District. I.A.No.62 of 2009 was filed by the revision petitioners herein under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the suit for further evidence to be adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs. On an earlier occasion when the petitioners had requested the Court to summon two witnesses namely Sri Gulivindala Appa Rao of Temburu village and Ravada Chinna Babu of Gangupeta village, the Court below had issued summons on 31.12.2007. These two witnesses are said to have appeared in Court on 25.1.2008 and 15.2.2008. However, the Presiding Officer was not present and they could not be examined. Thereafter, the matter stood adjourned to 17.3.2008 on which date they did not attend the Court. The evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 24.3.2008 and thereafter the evidence of the defendants was also completed. The Court below dismissed I.A.No.62 of 2009 on the ground that the petitioners - plaintiffs had failed to adduce further evidence on their behalf despite several adjournments granted by the Court and despite having knowledge of the conditional order passed by the Court for the purpose of adducing evidence on their behalf. The Court below held that the petitioners – plaintiffs had failed to adduce further evidence at all relevant stages of the suit though several adjournments were granted for years together to enable them to adduce further evidence, that they had simply taken adjournments in the court for adducing further evidence but had failed to let in evidence in this regard, that the present application, under Section 151 C.P.C, was filed at the stage of arguments after evidence on both sides had been adduced and, since it was a pre 2003 matter, there were no justifiable reasons to reopen the matter at the fag end of the proceedings. The court below further held that the application in I.A.No.62 of 2009 was filed only with a view to interrupt and obstruct the process of law and with a view to drag on the matter and, accordingly, dismissed the I.A. Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that it is imperative that these two witnesses be examined as they were Directors of the respondent – college during the relevant period, that these two witnesses had appeared pursuant to the summons issued by the Court below on two occasions and it was only because the Presiding officer was absent that they had abstained from appearing in Court thereafter. Learned Counsel would submit that, if another opportunity was granted to the petitioners and fresh summons were issued directing their appearance, these two witnesses could be examined, otherwise the petitioners would be deprived of their valuable rights to property. The suit is of the year 2002 and has been pending on the file of the Junior Civil Judge for the past seven years. Admittedly, on a previous occasion two years ago, summons were issued directing appearance of these two witnesses. Even if the contention of the petitioners – plaintiffs that the two witnesses had appeared on two occasions were to be accepted there is no justification for their absence thereafter. Failure on the part of these witnesses to appear would not necessitate the Court below to issue summons afresh directing their appearance merely because, on the two occasions they were present, the Presiding Officer was absent. It is evident from the order of the court below that the matter stood adjourned on numerous occasions thereafter for further evidence to be let in on behalf of the petitioners – plaintiffs. It is only after the evidence, both on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendants, was complete and the matter was listed for arguments that the application in I.A.No.62 of 2009 was filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the suit for adducing further evidence. The court below was of the view that the petitioners – plaintiffs endeavour was only to drag on proceedings. Such a conclusion would not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as it is supported by the evidence on record of repeated adjournments having been granted to enable the summoned witnesses to be examined. The order of the Court below does not suffer from any infirmity necessitating interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is, accordingly, dismissed. ____________ 7-8-2009 asp