THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6685 OF 2006 Date: 09-04-2010 Between Seelam Trinadha Rao …..Petitioner And Seelam Apparao and eight others …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6685 OF 2006 ORDER: The plaintiff is in revision against the orders of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole dismissing I.A No. 630 of 2006 in O.S No.5 of 2002, dated 13-10-2006. The petitioner – plaintiff instituted the suit for declaration that he is the vested reminder holder of the plaint schedule properties and entitled to possession after ejecting the defendants after the life time of the 1st defendant as per the Will dated 15-03-1969 executed by the father of the 1st defendant. In the said suit, the plaintiff was examined as PW 1 on different spells from 28-10- 2005 to 05-01-2006 and sufficiently cross examined on his evidence which discloses that he came to know the existence of the Will through his sister and that he has not shown the Will in any public office. His sister alone knows the particulars of the properties of the grandfather and that he failed to examine his sister from whom he came to know about the existence of the Will nor stated that the attestors of the Will are alive or not. After the closure of the plaintiff’s evidence, when the defendants evidence has been closed and the matter is posted for arguments, at that stage, he filed the present I.A for summoning Seelam Venkanna, son of Ramaswamy to examine on his side to prove the Will dated 15-03-1969. On contest made by the respondents – defendants, the same has been dismissed by the lower Court by the impugned docket order stating that the respondents – defendants have already adduced their evidence and when the suit is coming up for arguments, the present IA is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff to cover up the lacunae in his case at a belated stage and if the petition is allowed, it will affect the rights of the parties and cause prejudice to the interests of the respondents and, therefore, the same cannot be allowed. Questioning the same, the present revision is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the judgments of this Court in C. Ramakrishna v. Maqsood Ali Khan[1] and Venkata Ramana Agencies v. Koppu Guranna[2] contends that to substantiate the plea of the plaintiff the evidence cannot be shut down and since the petitioner – plaintiff has to prove the Will by examining one of the attestors, the lower Court ought to have allowed the application. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff was aware of the alienations made by the limited estate holders in favour of the defendants under various sale deeds as mentioned in para 7 of the plaint but has not chosen to seek further relief by way of declaration of title. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to such declaration or not in view of proviso to section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 also has to be gone into in the suit. In view of the same, at this stage, the plaintiff cannot cover up lacunae in his evidence under the garb of summoning the attestor of the Will. Thus, it is clear that after the closure of evidence when the case is coming up for arguments, the present I.A is filed only to cover up the lacunae and to protract the litigation. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the I.A does not suffer from any illegality in exercise of the jurisdiction warranting interference. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 09-04-2010 ks [1] 2001 (2) ALT 469 [2] 2002 (6) ALT 100