HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No. 2722 of 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 18.06.2009 passed in I.A.No. 446 of 2009 in O.S.No. 195 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the Application filed by the plaintiff under Section 151 C.P.C. for reopening of the suit, which stood posted for arguments, for further evidence on his behalf. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 29.06.2009. Though the 1st respondent received the notice and notice in respect of the 2nd respondent is served through his counsel appearing on his behalf in the trial Court, they did not choose to enter appearance either in person or through a counsel to resist the Civil Revision Petition. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the Revision. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not examine the attestor of Ex.A1, agreement of sale, since the attestor, namely P.Narsimha was not available and his address was not known and subsequently, the petitioner could secure the address of said Narsimha two days prior to filing of the Application. A further submission has been made that the petitioner, without loss of any time after securing the address of the attestor namely P. Narsimha, moved the Application and therefore, there are no laches on the part of the petitioner-plaintiff. Learned counsel took me to para 2 of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No. 446 of 2009 which reads as hereunder: “ I submit that above matter stands posted for arguments on 08.06.2009. In this regard, I submit that I want to examine the attesting witness by name P. Narasimha who witnessed the transaction under Ex.A1. At the time of my evidence, I could not secure the address of the said P. Narasimha. However two days back with great difficulty traced out the address of P. Narasimha and requested him to give evidence in the above case. The evidence of the said P. Narasimha is very much essential in order to prove the transaction and my case. Thus the above matter may be reopened for the purpose of my further evidence. Else, I would suffer much loss and hardship.” It appears, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the Application on the ground that the same has been filed at a belated stage. For better appreciation, I may refer the relevant portion of the order, which reads as hereunder: “ Further it is pertinent to mention that after the evidence on behalf of the both sides was closed on 04.12.2008 the matter was posted for arguments to 12.12.2008 and from 12.12.2008 to 19.01.2009 and from 19.01.2009 to 22.01.2009. On 22.01.2009 the petitioner herein filed the petition I.A. 194 of 2009 reopening of the evidence and to recall P.Ws. 1 and 2 for further cross- examination. But the said petition was dismissed after hearing both sides. Even at that stage also, the petitioner did not think of filing a petition to examine the attestors. Again the matter has been adjourned from time to time after disposal of I.A.No. 194 of 2009 on 26.03.2009 for arguments. Every time the counsel for the petitioner reported not ready for advancing arguments in spite of granting several adjournments. In stead of advancing arguments, the present petition is filed to reopen the case to examine the witness. Thus, I found that there are no bona fides in the contention of the petitioner and having allowed the matter to adjourn for several occasions for advancing arguments. As already pointed out, there are three attestors for the said document, he could have examined any of the attestors when the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was taken place. The present petition is filed after belated stage, that too after having availing several adjournments and opportunities. Thus, from the above said circumstances, I hold that the petition has no merits and liable to be dismissed.” The learned Senior Civil Judge did not take note of the specific averment made by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of I.A. No. 446 of 2009 with regard to securing the address of the attestor namely P. Narsimha two days prior to filing the petition and thereby erred in dismissing the application. In that view of the matter, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 18.06.2009 passed in I.A.No. 446 of 2009 and consequently, I.A.No. 446 of 2009 stands allowed. The petitioner is granted two weeks’ time from the date of receipt of a copoy of this order to examine one of the attestors,namely P. Narsimha as a witness on his behalf. No cost. ------------------------------------ (B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 27th October 2009 Note: Issue CC in three days. ksld