THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1742 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.76 of 2003 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Pulivendla, against the respondents, for the relief of perpetual injunction, in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial of the suit commenced. The evidence on behalf of the petitioners was closed and on behalf of the respondents, DWs.1 and 2 were examined. At that stage, the petitioners filed I.A.No.13 of 2009 under Section 151 C.P.C. with a prayer to reopen the suit to enable them to examine one Mr.Araveti Ramalingaiah and the Court Amin of Kadapa. It was pleaded that Ramalingaiah is the vendor of the petitioners, from whom the suit schedule properties were purchased and the property in question was the subject matter of E.P.No.106 of 1996 in O.S.No.28 of 1983 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Kadapa. They wanted to elicit from the two proposed witnesses that the possession of the property was delivered in the execution proceedings, and thereafter, it was sold in favour of the petitioners. The respondents opposed the application and pleaded that the I.A. was filed, only with a view to protract the proceedings. Through its order, dated 02.02.2009, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Hence, this C.R.P. Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners. Though the respondents have served with notice, they have not chosen to enter appearance. The suit no doubt is of the year 2003 and was identified for immediate disposal. The trial Court was mostly impressed by this fact and opined that permitting the petitioners to adduce evidence at this stage, would further delay the disposal of the suit. Things would have been different altogether, had the reopening of the suit been sought to enable the petitioners themselves to depose further. The effort made by them is to examine their vendor as well as the Court Amin, who delivered the possession in the execution proceedings. Information of this nature may not be readily available with the petitioners. The readiness of the witnesses to depose is another aspect. The petitioners have to procure the consent of the witnesses, duly explaining the circumstances. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was lack of diligence on the part of the petitioners in examining the said witnesses, when their turn was in progress. For the foregoing reasons, the C.R.P. is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.13 of 2009 is allowed, directing that the petitioners shall procure the presence of both the witnesses and complete their evidence on a day identified for such purpose. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08.06.2010. GJ