THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4869 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is filed, by the 1st respondent in O.S. No.17 of 2005, against the order passed by the District Judge, Anantapur in I.A. No.1578 of 2011 in O.S. No.17 of 2005 dated 18.10.2011. Defendants 2 to 5, (respondents 1 to 4 in this Revision Petition), filed the said application requesting the Court below to reopen the matter enabling them to adduce evidence. Facts, in brief, are that the 5th respondent filed O.S. No.17 of 2005 against the petitioner herein and respondents 1 to 4. After evidence was adduced by the petitioner herein and, since respondents 1 to 4 did not appear, their evidence was closed. Thereafter they filed an application seeking to reopen the matter to enable them to adduce evidence in the Suit. The Court below held that the application was to reopen the matter to lead evidence; while the application was filed by the power of attorney holder, it was not even his case that he be permitted to depose on their behalf in respect of facts within their personal knowledge; and, therefore, permitting/reopening of the evidence on behalf of the petitioners in the I.A. (respondents 1 to 4 herein) did not prejudice the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petiton. Aggrieved thereby the present revision. Sri S.D. Gowd, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the application in the impugned I.A. was filed not by defendants 2 to 5, but by their power of attorney holder; defendants 2 to 5 in the Suit were only formal parties; it was wholly unnecessary for them to examine themselves in the Suit; and the Court below had patently erred in permitting them to do so. None of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner merit acceptance. Firstly, as recorded by the Court below, only an application was filed by the power of attorney holder requesting that the matter be reopened to enable defendants 2 to 5 to adduce evidence. It is not even the case of the power of attorney holder that he should be permitted to be examined as a witness on behalf of defendants 2 to 5. The petitioner herein is the 1st defendant in the Suit. If any person can be said to be aggrieved by any delay caused, as a result of the matter being reopened and defendants 2 to 5 examined, it is only the 5th respondent herein (the plaintiff in the suit) and not the 1st defendant-petitioner. Even otherwise the jurisdiction which this Court exercises, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is supervisory and not appellate. The discretion exercised by the Court below does not suffer from any patent illegality necessitating interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In any event, no prejudice, much less irretrievable prejudice, has been caused to the petitioner herein by the order of the Court below permitting defendants 2 to 5 to adduce evidence. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. ___________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J 02.12.2011 MRKR