IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5037 OF 2008 BETWEEN: Shaik Vali S/o. Nabi Saheb …. Petitioner AND Bonthapuri Kristudasu S/o. Late Devadanam …. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5037 OF 2008 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the main revision itself is taken up for disposal. 2. This revision is made against the dismissal order dated 28-03-2007 in I.A. No.255 of 2007 in O.S. No.1151 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 3. The petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S. No.1151 of 2006. He filed the impugned I.A. seeking reopening of the suit for the purpose of adducing his evidence. He also stated in the application that he wants to recall PWs.1 and 2 for the purpose of cross- examination. 4. Learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, after perusing the contents of the case, dismissed the I.A. as the suit is at the stage of arguments. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner filed this revision. 5. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner squarely submits before this Court that he seeks only an opportunity for adducing evidence on his behalf and it would meet the ends of justice. 6. On perusal of the record, it is evident that when the matter came up for evidence on behalf of the petitioner before the trial Court, he was not present. He had shown a reason for his absence. In view of the same and also considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is felt desirable that an opportunity should be given to the petitioner to lead evidence on his behalf. 7. In view of the pleas taken in defence, the revision is, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 28-03-2007 in I.A.No.255 of 2007 in O.S. No.1151 of 2006 passed by the learned Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, is set aside. It is clarified that the impugned I.A. stands allowed only to the extent of allowing the petitioner to lead evidence on his behalf. It is also made clear that the question of recalling PWs.1 and 2 for further examination does not arise. It is further directed that the Court below shall expedite the matter and dispose of the same within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J February 19, 2010 KTL