THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2951 of 2011 and C.R.P. No.3156 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.92 of 2006 in the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam against respondent No.2 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The recording of evidence is concluded. At that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.1056 and 1057 of 2010 with a prayer to reopen the evidence and to recall her i.e. P.W.1 as a witness. She intended to file a certificate said to have been issued by a Panchayat Secretary to support her contention as to the availability of an item of property for partition. The applications were opposed by respondent No.2. The trial Court dismissed the applications through a common order, dated 05.08.2010. Hence, these two revisions. Heard Sri K.Sarvabhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is a matter of record that the evidence in the suit is closed on behalf of both the parties. Very strong case is needed for reopening of evidence. In case one of the parties seeks reopening of the suit for the purpose of filing of documents, two important conditions are to be complied with. The first is that the documents must be shown to be relevant for the issues framed in the suit and the second is that the reasons for not filing the documents at the relevant point of time must be explained. In the instant case, the petitioner failed on both the counts. Another flaw is that the petitioner did not file an application under Order 7 Rule 14 C.P.C. with a prayer to receive the document. The trial Court has assigned cogent reasons for dismissing the applications and this Court is not inclined to take a different view. Hence, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:28.07.2011. kdl