SANAGALA SRINIVASULU Vs. PONNAPOOLA SEETHARAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2016 in IA No.356 of 2015 in OS No.159 of 2010 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge, Nellore, wherein the court below dismissed the above petition.

(2.) The petitioner/plaintiff filed suit in OS No.159 of 2010 against the respondent/defendant, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 07.03.2005. In the suit, the defendant filed his written statement on 02.11.2010. PW.1 filed affidavit in chief examination on 07.09.2011 and his evidence was closed on 27.08.2015. The evidence on behalf of the defendant was also closed on 30.11.2015. The present I.A. was filed on 14.12.2015 seeking to reopen the suit. The reasons stated in the affidavit filed along with the reopening petition are that as the respondent disputed the signature in Ex.A.9 and also delivery of possession of the schedule property under Ex.A.10, the petitioner desires to prove that the property is in his possession and enjoyment and also to prove the signature in Ex.A.9, he has been advised to file the petition to reopen the suit, enabling him to adduce further evidence on his behalf. The court below, after considering the respective submissions, and more particularly, considering that the case is at the stage of arguments, had dismissed the I.A.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that along with the reopening petition, the petitioner also filed petitions, namely, one for seeking recall of DW.1, enabling him to further cross-examine DW.1, another petition seeking to sent the signatures of the respondent on Ex.A.9 for comparison with the admitted signatures of the respondent on Exs.A.7 and A.8 and other available signatures, for opinion of Handwriting Expert and also another petition to recall PW.1, enabling him to mark the documents mentioned in the list of documents. As the reopening application has not yet been allowed, the other petitions have not yet been numbered.