THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.328 OF 2010 ORDER: 1 Petitioner who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.11 of 2000 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet filed this revision assailing the order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge in I.A.No.332 of 2009 in the said suit which was filed for reopening of the suit and for adducing further evidence. 2 Brief facts are that the petitioner herein instituted the said suit for declaration of his title. His evidence was over on 05.12.2008 and thereafter the defendants examined D.Ws.1 to 3 and their evidence was closed on 10.07.2009. When the matter is posted for arguments, the petitioner filed the present application stating that he wants to lead further evidence and as such the suit has to be reopened. As stated supra, the same was dismissed. Hence the present revision. 3 Heard both sides. 4 It is true that the present suit is of the year 2000 and the petitioner was not diligent in making such a request at the earliest point of time. Apparently his evidence was closed on 05.12.2008 and the defendants’ side evidence was closed on 10.07.2009 and when the suit is coming up for arguments, the petitioner came up with the present application. The said conduct of the petitioner is definitely blameworthy. But on that score alone, it cannot be said that he should be denied the opportunity of further examination. Ultimately it is the plaintiff who is going to suffer. Further, the suit is one for declaration of title where substantive rights are involved. Moreover, the respondents, though have been served, have not chosen to put in their appearance. Hence this court is of the view that an opportunity be given to the petitioner to adduce further evidence. 5 Accordingly, this revision is allowed and the order dated 26.11.2009 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narayanpet in I.A.No.332 of 2009 in O.S.No.11 of 2000 is hereby set aside. The court below is hereby directed to reopen the suit and permit the petitioner to adduce further evidence. However, if the petitioner again does not evince interest in getting the suit disposed of at the earliest, the court below may take necessary steps to close the suit. It is needless to observe that the defendants, if they so choose, may also be given an opportunity for cross examination on the further evidence to be adduced by the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. --------------- 07.04.2010 kvsn