HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P. Nos. 3921 and 3923 of 2009 DATED:05.10.2009 Between: D.Dhananjaya Rao And another ..... PETITIONERs And Kamala Kukmari And 56 others ...RESPONDENT(S) COMMON ORDER:- These two C.R.Ps. are directed against the separate docket orders dated 13.07.2009, passed by the Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Rajendranagar, dismissing the applications in I.A. Nos. 918 and 919 in O.S. No. 672 of 2008, filed by the petitioners- defendant Nos. 51 and 52 praying to re-open the evidence of defendants and receive additional evidence, namely receipt-dated 18.06.1994. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendant Nos.51 and 52 and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the orders under revision. A perusal of the impugned docket orders would disclose that on two occasions there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners- defendant Nos.51 and 52, even though additional issue was framed, and the petitioners-defendant Nos. 51 and 52, did not chose to adduce any evidence, as therefore, the evidence of the petitioners-defendant Nos.51 and 52 was closed on 18.04.2006. However, on the last occasion, when the matter came up, this Court directed the petitioners-defendant Nos.51 and 52 to file chronology of events, narrating the events that have taken place from the date of filing the application in I.A. No. 2898 of 2005, which was filed by the respondent-plaintiff. Accordingly, the petitioners-defendant Nos. 51 and 52 filed the chronology of events. A perusal of the chronology of events would show that except on two occasions i.e. on 04.12.2008 and 04.06.2009 the counsel for the defendants was not ready, but on all other occasions, the matter was adjourned on the ground that the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed some revision petitions before this Court and on other grounds. The chronology of events further disclose that on 25.06.2009, the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed a memo stating that she has no further evidence on her side. The petitioners-defendant Nos. 51 and 52 submit that already they filed affidavit in lieu of chief of petitioner-defendant No.52, which is already placed on record, and it is submitted by the counsel appearing on their behalf that if a day is fixed for cross-examination, he will produce the witness for cross-examination, and the cross-examination of the witness can be completed on that day itself, and undertook that he will not take any further adjournment. The learned counsel for the respondents have not controverted the chronology of events, and agreed for granting one opportunity to the petitioners-defendant Nos. 51 and 52. In view of the stand taken by the counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the C.R.Ps. with the following directions: The docket orders dated 13.07.2009 passed by the Court below, which are under revision, are set aside. The Court below is directed to re- open the evidence for cross-examination of petitioner-defendant No.52, and fix a date for his cross-examination. The petitioner-defendant No. 52 shall get himself ready for cross-examination by the 1st respondent-plaintiff on the day fixed. However, If the petitioner-defendant No. 52, does not make himself available for cross-examination and does not co-operate with the conduct of the trial, then the Court below shall reject their request for adducing further evidence, and adjudicate the suit proceeding, based on the material available on record, without granting any further adjournment. Accordingly, the C.R.Ps. are allowed. No costs. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J 5TH October, 2009 bcj