Belated applications to reopen a suit for additional evidence must demonstrate sufficient grounds; otherwise, they impede timely proceedings and may jeopardize the fairness of the trial.

ORDER :

(N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.)

Aggrieved by the order 10.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.386 of 2024 in O.S.No.145 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. Sri Aravala Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

3. In view of the nature of relief sought in this Civil Revision Petition, notice to respondents is revoked by invoking the power of this Court under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

4. The petitioner and respondents in the present CRP are plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 respectively in O.S.No.145 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad.

5. As per the averments made in the affidavit it is submitted that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.145 of 2012 before the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad for declaration of title and for rectification of entries in Revenue records and for consequential injunction. The pleadings in the aforesaid suit are that the father of the petitioner was the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and after his death, petitioner’s name was mutated as pattedar in the Revenue records and the petitioner is continuing as owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. Petitioner’s further case is that in the year 2012 some third parties visited the suit schedule property and later petitioner came to know that the name of the respondent No.1 is shown as pattedar and possessor without having any right and without the knowledge of the petitioner.

6. Respondent No.1 filed written statement in the said suit stating that respondent No.1 has purchased the land under an un-registered sale deed and that she is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that basing on the said written statement filed by respondent No.1, the petitioner impleaded respondent Nos.5 to 7 as party-defendants to the aforesaid suit.

7. It is further submitted that when respondents forcibly took possession of suit schedule property on 19.02.2017, the petitioner amended the plaint for recovery of possession also.

8. It is submitted that the petitioner was examined himself as PW-1 and got examined PW-2 on his behalf and respondent No.1 was examined as DW-1 and that when the matter was posted for defendants’ side evidence, petitioner filed I.A.No.386 of 2024 to reopen the suit for further evidence of petitioner stating that one important witness has to be examined. The said I.A. was dismissed on 10.12.2024 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

9. Respondent No.1 filed counter in the said I.A. stating that the matter is coming up for the evidence of respondent Nos.2 to 4 / defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the evidence of respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 has already been completed. Defendant No.1 submitted that it was wrongly mentioned by the petitioner that the learned trial Court has closed the evidence. In fact, the learned trial Court adjourned the matter on 12.06.2024 at the request of the petitioner for further evidence so also on 19.06.2024 and finally on 26.06.2024 and when the petitioner reported ‘no further evidence’ then only the learned trial Court adjourned the matter for defendants’ evidence. Defendant No.1 further submitted that her evidence as DW-1 was concluded and the matter was coming up for the evidence of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and at the belated stage, petitioner filed I.A.No