IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4599 of 2010 BETWEEN: Nampalli Sanjeeva Rao. ... PETITIONER AND Samala Narender and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J. VENKATESWARA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MRS. K. RAJITHA The Court made the following: ORDER: This is a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the plaintiff in O.S.No.1058 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by the dismissal of his application I.A.No.1279 of 2010 in O.S.No.1058 of 2005 by order dated 03.09.2010. 2. In the suit, on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff P.W.1 was examined on 19.03.2010 and thereafter, it was adjourned for further evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. When it was posted on 06.08.2010 on the ground that the petitioner is not showing any interest the evidence on the petitioner side was closed and the petition for adjournment was rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1279 of 2010 to reopen the evidence so as to allow him to lead the evidence of P.W.2 but the Court below under its impugned order rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner is not evincing any interest in prosecuting the matter. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. As much as in the affidavit filed in support of the aforesaid application it is stated by the petitioner that in order to prove his case the evidence of P.W.2 is necessary, but he could not produce the said witness, as P.W.2 was not available at that time. In that view of the matter the further evidence was not let in by producing P.W.2 and the Court below only on the ground that the application for adjournment was rejected has also rejected the present application. 5. Having perused the affidavit filed in support of the application filed by the petitioner before the Court below and the reasons stated in the said affidavit, I deem it appropriate to allow the petitioner to adduce evidence subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. 6. Accordingly, the order under challenge in I.A.No.1279 of 2010 is set aside on condition of payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- by the petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from today, which has to be deposited to the credit of O.S.No.1058 of 2005. On such deposit, the respondents are entitled to withdraw the same in equal proportion without furnishing any security. Subject to the aforesaid conditions, the civil revision petition is allowed. Consequently, I.A.No.1279 of 2010 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J October 26, 2010 DSK