THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:497 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 19.01.2009, in I.A.No.544 of 2008 in O.S.No.691 of 2001 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein for reopening of the evidence permitting the 2nd petitioner to be examined as D.W.3, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. Petitioners herein-plaintiffs filed the suit against the respondents-defendants for specific performance of agreement of sale. It is stated that another suit- O.S.No.2668 of 2004 filed for eviction was also clubbed along with the suit and joint trial was conducted and common evidence was recorded in O.S.No.2668 of 2004. 1st petitioner herein, who is the wife of the 2nd petitioner, was examined and the evidence was closed and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, 2nd petitioner filed I.A.No.544 of 2008 seeking to reopen the evidence so that he may be examined as D.W.3. Respondent filed a counter opposing the application stating that in spite of several opportunities given for further evidence between 16.09.2008 and 04.11.2008, plaintiffs herein have not availed the same and the present application is filed only to protract the litigation. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1st petitioner, who is the wife and also the GPA holder of 2nd petitioner is already examined and the 2nd petitioner now seeks to give evidence only to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the 1st petitioner. 5. Even if the 1st petitioner holds GPA for the 2nd petitioner, still the 2nd petitioner would be entitled to depose and they may not be denied the opportunity to give evidence. No doubt, 2nd petitioner has not availed the opportunities given by the trial Court when the matter stood posted for further evidence on several dates. However, with a view to afford full opportunity to the parties to place all the necessary evidence on record, it is considered in the interest of fair trial that an opportunity can be given to the 2nd petitioner to be examined as D.W.3. The evidence is therefore directed to be reopened and the 2nd petitioner is permitted to depose as D.W.3 on a date to be fixed by the trial Court and in the event of his failure to avail the said opportunity, the right of the 2nd petitioner to give evidence would stand forfeited. The impugned order is accordingly set aside and consequently, I.A.No.544 of 2008 stands allowed, as stated above. 6. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 22nd September, 2011. Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 26.09.2011 B/o Tsy