THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.Nos. 5801, 5802, 5803 and 5804 of 2010. COMMON ORDER: The revision petitioner in these four revisions had filed O.S.No. 624 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry for recovery of money on the basis of two promissory notes. As a security for the loan taken, the respondents/defendants created an equitable mortgage by depositing title deeds of the schedule property on 5.2.1995 and also executed a memorandum on 6.2.2005. In the suit compound interest at the rate of 24% p.a. basing on the kararnama dt. 7.2.1995 was claimed on the ground that the respondents/defendants agreed to pay compound interest @ 24% p.m. In the written statement, the respondents/defendants denied execution of kararnama dt. 7.2.1995 and memorandum dt. 6.2.2005. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed including an issue ‘whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious and penal’. Evidence on both sides was concluded and the plaintiff advanced her arguments on 2.8.2010 and the arguments on behalf of the defendants were also concluded on 9.8.2010 and on 9.8.2010 the Counsel for the revision petitioner sought adjournment to 12.8.2010 for reply arguments and then filed four petitions being I.A.Nos. 799 to 803 of 2010 seeking to reopen the suit for further evidence of the plaintiff, to recall Pw.1 for marking further documents, to receive documents namely bank pass book of Bank of India and to summon the Bank Manager to give evidence regarding rate of interest as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. In support of the affidavits filed in support of these applications, it was pleaded that the trial of the case was conducted by a Junior of petitioner’s counsel and in discussions in the chambers of the senior counsel, it was realized that the plaintiff should have led more elaborate evidence and should have filed further documents to buttress the plaintiff’s case with regard to the rate of interest claimed in the suit. It was further pleaded in the affidavits that due to oversight or mistake, proper evidence could not be marshaled and therefore the applications are being filed. The court below rejected all the applications stating that after giving full opportunity to both parties to adduce their evidence, the evidence on either side was closed, arguments of the plaintiff and the defendants were advanced and at this stage, the plaintiff cannot be allowed to seek reopening of the suit for leading further evidence and for marking further documents and that the trial of the suit was conducted inefficiently by a junior counsel cannot be a ground to reopen the suit. The court below further held that the defendants would be prejudiced if the plaintiff is permitted to reengineer the trial of the suit. This Court discerns no error in the application of law or execise of discretion by the court below warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. These revisions are without merit, commend rejection and are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 24.12.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.Nos. 5801, 5802, 5803 and 5804 of 2010. COMMON ORDER: DT. 24.12.2010.