ORDER : G. Sri Devi, J. 1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order, dated 31.12.2019 passed in I.A. No. 256 of 2019 in O.S. No. 32 of 2016 on the file of the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Mancherial, wherein and whereunder an application filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs to re-open the evidence of petitioners/plaintiffs, was dismissed. 2. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 32 of 2016 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of suit scheduled property. When the said suit was posted for arguments, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed two applications viz., I.A. No. 255 of 2019 for reopening the case for submitting arguments and another I.A. No. 256 of 2019 for reopening the evidence of the plaintiffs so as to examine plaintiff No. 3 as a witness. On 03.12.2019 when the suit was posted for arguments of the petitioners/plaintiffs, there was no representation on their behalf and that the Court below treated the arguments of the plaintiffs as heard and posted the matter for arguments of the defendants. The respondents/defendants failed to file counter. Hence, after considering the material available on record, the Court below, while allowing I.A. No. 255 of 2019, dismissed I.A. No. 256 of 2019, which was filed for reopening the evidence of the plaintiffs. Challenging the dismissal of I.A. No. 256 of 2019, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs and learned Counsel for the respondent No. 35 and perused the record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that the 1st and 2nd petitioners/plaintiffs purchased the suit scheduled property from the 3rd petitioner/plaintiff, through registered sale deed No. 9444/2013, dated 08.08.2013, who purchased it from respondent Nos. 1 to 3/defendants through registered sale deed No. 216 of 1967. He further submits that in the suit, petitioner No. 2/plaintiff was examined as P.W. 1 and petitioner No. 1/plaintiff was examined as P.W. 2 and Exs. A1 to A-48 were marked and petitioner No. 3/plaintiff due to her old age ailments could not able to come to Court to give evidence in the suit and that the Court below closed the evidence of plaintiffs and posted the case for recording the evidence of defendant Nos. 35 and 42, who are the contesting parties, and they were examined as D.Ws. 35 and 42, who are the contesting parties, and they were examined as D.Ws. 1 and 2 and one A. Laxmaiah was examined as D.W. 3 and that the Court below closed the evidence of defendants and posted the matter for arguments. He further submits that the Court below ought not to have dismissed I.A. No. 256 of 2019 observing that any further evidence from plaintiffs will cover up lacunae in petitioners/plaintiffs case and ought to have perused the entire pleadings in the suit; that the Court below ought to have observed that in order to adjudicate as to whether sale deed No. 859/1968 (Ex. A48) is genuine or forged, it is just and necessary to adduce the evidence of petitioner No. 3/plaintiff. 5. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 35/defendant No. 35 contended that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed the present petition for re-opening the evidence of the plaintiffs so as to examine plaintiff No. 3 as a witness at a belated stage i.e., when the case was posted for arguments and as such the Court below has rightly dismissed the said petition and granted permission to the petitioners/plaintiffs to advance their arguments in the said suit. 6. In K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy (2011) 11 SCC 275 , after considering the principles laid down in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) through L.Rs. v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate (2009) 4 SCC 410 , and taking note of Section 151, CPC, the Apex Court concluded that in the interests of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of the Court, the trial Court is free to consider whether it was necessary to reopen the evidence and if so, in what manner and to what extent. Further, it is observed that the evidence should be permitted in exercise of its power under Section 151 of the Code. The following principles laid down in that case are relevant: "19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. The following principles laid down in that case are relevant: "19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs." 7. In the instant case, the material available on record would show that the entire evidence of both sides has been completed and the case was posted for arguments of both parties on 27.02.2019. However, the petitioners/plaintiffs failed to submit their arguments and hence the Court below treated the arguments of the plaintiffs as heard on 03.12.2019 and posted the matter for arguments of the defendants. The petitioners/plaintiffs have not shown any reason to reopen their evidence for adducing the evidence of the 3rd plaintiff. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that if the evidence of the petitioners/plaintiffs reopened, it would cover up the lacunae in plaintiffs case and it would also cause prejudice to the defendants. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition sans merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 9. As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.