HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No. 3908 of 2011 DATED: 16.09.2011 Between: M.A. Muneem .. Petitioner/ Plaintiff And Syed Ahmed Mohiuddin Quadri and three others .. Respondents/ Defendants O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 26.07.2011 passed in I.A. No. 32 of 2011 in O.S. No. 489 of 2010 by IX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereunder the application filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence by setting aside the order dated 25.11.2010 closing the plaintiff’s further evidence, is dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the order under revision. The main grounds on which the application under Section 151 CPC was filed, are that the plaintiff intends to examine one M.A. Raheem who, though received summons, initially could not come to the Court to give evidence as he was critically ill, and the other ground is that the plaintiff also intends to examine another witness by name Zafarullah Baigh who was present when the gift deed was executed in his favour. The material on record shows that even though ample opportunity was given to the petitioner-plaintiff, he did not examine his witness namely M.A. Raheem, who was allegedly fell ill, and the petitioner neither took any steps for securing his attendance nor filed any memo to the effect that he was not feeling well, as such, the plaintiff’s further evidence was closed on 24.03.2011. Further, in spite of the fact that M.A. Raheem received summons, he did not turn up for adducing evidence. The trial Court also held that when the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner contended that M.A. Raheem was completely recovered from illness and might be given an opportunity to adduce evidence, but as his contention was not supported by any relevant material to show that M.A. Raheem was medically fit, recalling him for the purpose of adducing evidence, will be a futile exercise. Insofar as examination of another witness by name Zafarulla Baig on behalf of the plaintiff, it is to be taken note of that a mere mention in the cross-examination of PW1 that Zafarulla Baig was present at the time of execution of the gift deed without there being any specific reason assigning for his non-examination, cannot be a tenable ground for summoning that witness for examination, and it is nothing but an endeavour to fill up lacunae in the plaintiff’s evidence. Under the circumstances, this Court feels that it would not be appropriate to allow the application to re-open the plaintiff’s side evidence. Hence, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 16.09.2011 bcj