ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the order dated 11.07.2019 in I.A.No.580 of 2019 in Original Suit No.164 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, which is filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to reopen the evidence of plaintiff for the purpose of recalling P.W.1 to receive the following documents and to give further evidence.

1. Income Tax Returns for the year 2010-2011

2. Form-1B issued by Tahsildar, Rajanagaram for S.No.170/1 for the land to an extent of Ac.7-33 cents situated in Mukkinada village.

3. Form 1B issued by Tahsildar, Anaparthi for S.No.109 to an extent of Ac.0-55 cents; S.No.105/2 to an extent of Ac.0-15 cents of Polamuru village.

4. Form 1B issued by Tahsildar, Mandapeta for S.No.642/2 to an extent of Ac.1-2550 cents and S.No.654/1 to an extent of Ac.0.0550 cents; S.No.653/6 to an extent of Ac.0-06 cents; S.No.653/4 to an extent of Ac.0-32 cents and S.No.653/3 to an extent of Ac.1-3350 cents; S.No.652/2/C to an extent of Ac.0-0850 cents and S.No.652/1 to an extent of Ac.0-4900 cents situated in Yedida village.

2. Original Suit No.164 of 2014 on the file of V Additional District Judge, Rajamahendravaram was filed for recovery of the amount based on three promissory notes. During the course of trial, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and attestor was examined as P.W.2. After completion of the evidence on both sides, the petitioner/plaintiff has filed the petition to reopen the evidence of plaintiff along with two more petitions to receive the documents for the purpose of establishing the capacity of the plaintiff to lend the amount. According to the plaintiff, during the course of cross examination, learned counsel for the defendant put questions regarding the capacity of the plaintiff and the source of income. According to the plaintiff, he has poultry farm and Idly Ravva Mill. Therefore, to prove his capacity, it is necessary to adduce evidence by filing the above said documents and for that purpose he needs to be recalled and further affidavit is to be filed.

3. Counter filed by the respondent/defendant stating that the question was raised in the written statement itself and that the documents sought to be filed now are created and false and that the document of Income Tax returns, if true, the same would have been filed along with the plaint or at least after filing of the written statement and more over, the said document is not certified copy of the Income Tax department or not even the office copy of the Chartered Accountant. The petition is also opposed on the ground that the petition has been filed at the belated stage of arguments and such petition on a belated stage cannot be permitted, unless the petitioner satisfies the Court that despite his due diligence, he could not have filed the documents earlier.

4. After hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed the petition on costs of Rs.500/- to the other side and further on condition to adduce evidence on 05.08.2019, failing which, the petition stands dismissed.

5. Having aggrieved by the same, the respondent/defendant preferred the present Revision Petition challenging the impugned order on the ground that the trial court failed to observe that the present petition was filed to cover up the lacunas in the evidence of P.W.1 after the closure of the evidence on both sides and that the reason shown is a lame excuse and more particularly, in view of raising question of lending capacity in the written statement itself.

6. Heard Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant and Sri M.V.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant, apart from reiterating the grounds taken in the courter, submitted that the respondent/plaintiff has to show that he has exercised due diligence when he has come up with the application at a belated sta