THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5261 OF 2011 Dated: 05.12.2011 Between : BITS Pilani, Shameerpet, R.R. District, Rep. by its Director, Prof. V.S. Rao, Having office at BITS Pilani, Rajasthan. … Petitioner And 1. Smt. K. Samyuktha and others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5261 OF 2011 ORDER : The revision petitioner is the defendant No.1 in O.S.No.731 of 2006 on the ﬁle of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-V Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal, R.R. District. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiﬀs. The suit is ﬁled against the revision petitioner as well as the respondents 3 and 4 herein for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The suit claim was contested and it appears that the evidence of the plaintiﬀs was closed on 30.03.2011. Thereafter the evidence of the defendants was closed on 6.4.2011 on the ground that there was no representation on their behalf. On 31.5.2011 the defendants ﬁled I.A.No.804 of 2011 to reopen the case and permit them to lead evidence. They also ﬁled I.A.No.805 of 2011 to receive certain documents in evidence on their behalf. The Court below by order dated 22.11.2011 dismissed I.A.No.804 of 2011, however adjourned I.A.No.805 of 2011 for counter of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.804 of 2011, the present Civil Revision Petition is ﬁled by the defendant No.1. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. As could be seen from the material available on record, the evidence of the plaintiﬀs was closed on 30.3.2011 and thereafter it appears that the matter was adjourned only once for the evidence of the defendants. In the aﬃdavit ﬁled in support of I.A.No.804 of 2011, the reasons for the inability of the 1st defendant to ﬁle the aﬃdavit in lieu of chief-examination on 06.04.2011 were explained in detail. Since the 1st respondent is an institution and the plea that the staﬀ of the 1st defendant along with the defendant No.3 were held up with the examinations that were scheduled in the month of April was not disputed, there is no reason to disbelieve the reasons given for the inability of the 1st defendant to ﬁle the aﬃdavit of P.W.1 in lieu of chief-examination on the day fixed. Be that as it may, since the other application i.e., I.A.No.805 of 2011 which is ﬁled for receiving additional documents in evidence on behalf of the defendants is yet to be heard, the Court below ought to have given at least one opportunity to the defendants to lead evidence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the Court below was not justiﬁed in rejecting the request of the defendants to reopen the case. Accordingly, the order under Revision is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to hear I.A.No.804 of 2011 afresh along with I.A.No. 805 of 2011 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 05.12.2011 gbs