THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5172 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioners, who are defendants in O.S.No.39 of 2010, filed this Civil Revision Petition against order, dated 27.10.2010 passed in an unnumbered I.A. in the aforesaid suit. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined. The petitioners filed I.A.No.180 of 2007 to recall P.W.1 to cross-examine further. It is stated that the said I.A. was allowed by the trial Court by order, dated 08.06.2007 on condition of depositing Rs.100/- towards costs. Thereafter, it was adjourned to 19.06.2007, 16.07.2007 and 24.07.2007. On 24.07.2007, P.W.1 was called absent and the application filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking adjournment was also dismissed. In view of the same, I.A.No.180 of 2007 was disposed of by recording the readiness of the learned counsel for the petitioners to comply the conditions in order, dated 08.06.2007 and to cross- examine P.W.1. The petitioners filed the present un-numbered I.A. to reopen I.A.No.180 of 2007. It is stated that on 25.10.2010, while returning that un-numbered I.A., the Office has raised certain objections, which reads as under: 1. Without explaining the provision of law to entertain this Petition that the same Court, which was already closed the Petition, but mentioned as call on Bench, hence, explained. 2. Provision of law mentioned under Section 151 of CPC., Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment reported in 2010(5) ALD Page 124 Supreme Court at para 13 held that Section 151 is not a provision of law conferring power to grant any kind of substantive relief and further held that it cannot be exercised in conflict with the general scheme and intent of the Code and it cannot be used either to create or recognize rights, or to create liabilities and obligations not contemplated by any law. 3. Once petition is closed, under what provision of law the same Court has got right to re-open the petition and pass appropriate orders. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in spite of compliance of the said objections on 26.10.2010, the trial Court rejected their un- numbered I.A. by order, dated 27.10.2010, which reads as under: “Without compliance regarding the objection that once closed the Petition under what provision of law the same Court has got right to re-open, explained.” The impugned order is not an independent one to examine the validity of the same in this Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As much as it is the case of the petitioners that objections, dated 25.10.2010 are already complied on 26.10.2010, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to examine the compliance reported by the petitioners on objections, dated 25.10.2010, and decide on the maintainability of such petition, by passing a detailed order, within a period of six (6) weeks from today. Subject to the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 29th JULY, 2011. kvni