Judgment :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. A thumbnail sketch of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: This revision is focussed as against the dismissal of the re-open petition filed by the petitioner in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to get condoned the delay of 488 days in filing the application to get set aside the ex-parte final decree passed in I.A.No.437 of 2011 on various grounds. 3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would detail and delineate the grounds to the effect that two witnesses, viz. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined in I.A.No.437 of 2011 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The side of the petitioner was closed; whereupon the petitioner felt that some more evidence should be adduced by examining some more witnesses and with that intention, he petitioned the court, for which, there was objection on the other side. Where upon, the court after hearing both sides dismissed the said application. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there was no willful negligence on the part of the revision petitioner in adducing the evidence; but the lower court failed to take note of the same. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any prima facie case made out for allowing the petition to get the matter re-opened for adducing additional oral evidence by examining witnesses? 6. A mere running of the eye over the judgment of the lower court would exemplify and demonstrate that the petitioner took several adjournments for adducing oral evidence, even then, he could not produce any more evidence other than the evidence of P.W.1-D.Senthilvelu, the petitioner herein and PW2-one other witness. One should not lose sight of the fact that the very application itself was one for getting the delay condoned in filing the application to get set aside the exparte final decree and in such a case, ad infinitum ad nauseam time cannot be granted by the lower court for adducing additional evidence. The lower court also appropriately and appositely, correctly and legally observed that ample opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to adduce additional evidence and even in his re-open application, the list of witnesses, which he proposed to examine was not furnished. The lower court also appropriately and appositely, correctly and legally observed that ample opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to adduce additional evidence and even in his re-open application, the list of witnesses, which he proposed to examine was not furnished. As such, I am of the considered view that the lower court cannot be found fault with for having dismissed the re-open application. 7. In the result, I find no infirmity in the judgment passed by the court below. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.