THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.4620 of 2007 Date of Order: 20-12-2010 Between: Namburi Sitaramaraju ..Petitioner and Kollati Ranga Ro ..Respondent The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No. 4620/2007 Oral order: This revision under Art.227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders of the Special Officer, Tenancy Tribunal- cum-Junior Civil Judge, Bantumili, Krishna District dt. 26-9-2007 dismissing IA No.306/2007 in ATC No.24/1987 filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall RWs.1 to 4 for further cross-examination. It is not disputed, on landlord filing ATC, the petitioner- landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4, and the respondent-tenant examined himself as R.W.1 and got examined R.Ws.2 to 7 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-27. The learned Tenancy Tribunal dismissed ATC on 21-3-1990. Aggrieved by the same, the landlord filed CMA No.56/90 before the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. Learned District Judge allowed CMA No.56/90 by order dt. 6-3-1996 and remitted the matter to the Tenancy Tribunal for fresh disposal, if necessary by taking oral and documentary evidence, to give a clear finding with respect to the effect of Exs.A-3 and B-1 to B-27. Thereafter, the Tribunal conducted de novo trial, where the petitioner-landlord examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and respondent-tenant himself examined as R.W.1 and apart from him R.Ws.2 to 4 were also examined and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-33. After considering the evidence adduced after remand, the learned Tenancy Tribunal allowed ATC on 31-10-1997. Aggrieved by the same, respondent-tenant preferred CMA No.131/1997 before the District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam. The said CMA was allowed and remanded the matter to the Tenancy Tribunal holding that the evidence of three witnesses ie., R.Ws.4,5 and 6, which were recorded earlier was not taken into consideration and to give a specific finding on Exs.A-3, Exs.B-1 to B-27 and directed the Tenancy Tribunal to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order by considering the evidence of witnesses recorded in the first instance and also after remand and to give a specific finding on Exs.A-3 and B-1 to B-27 On such remand, the present application has been filed for recalling R.Ws.1 to 4 for further cross-examination. While remanding the matter in the first instance, the lower appellate court directed to conduct de novo enquiry and pass appropriate orders. On such remand, after conducting de novo enquiry, ATC was allowed, against which, appeal has been filed and the lower appellate court found that finding recorded earlier to the remand order has not been considered and no finding has been recorded on Exs.A-3 and B-1 to B-27 as per remand order dt. 6-3-1996 and remanded to the Tenancy Tribunal for giving a specific finding by considering the evidence already recorded. The Tenancy Tribunal cannot be beyond the remand order and enlarge the scope of enquiry by allowing IAs. No infirmity is discernible in the order passed by the Tenancy Tribunal warranting interference by this court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 20-12-2010 kmr