IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5168 of 2011 Between: Gutta Rama Mohana Rao, S/o Raghavendra Rao, Door No.10-19, Jagannadhapuram village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District. . ...Petitioner-1st Respondent-1st Defendant And 1.Undamatla Satyanarayana, S/o Apparao, Door No.5-14, Kadiyapu Lanka,Kadiyam Mandal, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District and another. .. Respondents-2nd Respondent-2nd defendant HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA C.R.P.No.5168 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order of the learned Principal District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, dated 21.10.2011 allowing I.A.No.2834 of 2011 in O.S.No.3 of 2009 filed by the plaintiff, who is the 1st respondent herein, under Order 18 Rule 17 of C.P.C. for recalling D.W.1 so as to make further cross-examination. The 1st respondent-plaintiff filed the suit, O.S.No.3 of 2009, against the revision petitioner and 2nd respondent herein for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 04.09.2006. In the said suit, evidence of both sides was over. At that stage, the 1st respondent-plaintiff filed the present I.A.No.2834 of 2011 seeking to recall D.W.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. The revision petitioner contested the said application by filing counter. The trial Court, on consideration of the entire material available on record, allowed the said application on certain conditions by order dated 21.10.2011. It is against this order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-1st defendant. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-1st defendant submits that D.W.1 cannot be recalled for further cross-examination on the ground that the Counsel for the plaintiff was not briefed properly by the plaintiff at the time of initial cross-examination of D.W.1. Learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff, while supporting the impugned order of the trial Court, contends that revision petitioner-1st defendant had executed sale deeds in favour of third parties after execution of an agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the property in question and hence it is essential to further cross-examine D.W.1 on the said aspect. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner-1st defendant if he is recalled for further cross-examination. Resultantly, I find no merit in this revision petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________________ JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA 30.11.2011 Gsn.