THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3014 OF 2009 Dated 4th August, 2010 Between: The Government of Andhra Pradesh rep. By District Collector, Kurnool and two others …Petitioners And K.J.Reddy …Respondent Counsel for the petitioners : Government Pleader for Arbitration Counsel for the respondent: None appeared The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order dated 31.01.2009 in I.A.No.184 of 2009 in O.S.No.1369 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge (for short “the Court below”), Kurnool. The petitioners are the Government of Andhra Pradesh and the Revenue Officials of Kurnool District. They are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent for declaration of title. During the trial, the case was posted to 23.01.2009 for the defendants’ side evidence. As evidence was not let in by the petitioners/defendants on that day, the evidence on their side was closed by the Court below on that day itself. Five days later, namely; on 28.01.2009 the petitioners filed I.A.No.184 of 2009 for reopening the evidence to enable them to let in evidence from their side. This application was dismissed by the Court below. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present Civil Revision Petition against the said order. In pursuance of the notice issued by this Court and permission to the petitioners to serve notice personally, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration has filed a memo along with proof of service on the respondent/plaintiff on 28.07.2010. When the case came up for admission and hearing on 28.07.2010; this Court has noticed that it was stated in the notice served by the petitioners that the respondent shall enter appearance on or before 04.08.2010. Therefore, in order to allow the respondent time as indicated in the notice, the case was adjourned on that day and accordingly it has come up for admission and hearing again today. Even today, at the hearing, there is no representation for the respondent. I have heard the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration and perused the record. While rejecting the petitioners’ application for reopening the evidence, the Court below has observed that the petition is belated and that the suit is at the arguments stage. The facts noted above would show that within five days of closing of the evidence, the petitioners have filed the application for reopening. Therefore, the Court below fell into an error in terming the petitioners’ application as belated one. Posting of the case for arguments was a logical consequence of closing the evidence in the suit. That by no means would deter the Court below to reopen the evidence, if a request to that effect was made within a reasonable time. As the petitioners were diligent in making an application without loss of much time, it cannot be said that the application filed by them is belated. For the abovementioned reasons, the order under revision is set aside. I.A.No.184 of 2009 is allowed. The Court below is directed to permit the petitioners to adduce their evidence before posting the case for arguments. The petitioners shall not seek any adjournment, whatsoever, for letting in their evidence. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of main petition, CRPMP No.4181 of 2009 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 4th August, 2010 vrn