IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1528 & 1531 OF 2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1528 OF 2010: Between: Smt. Y. Yogamba .....PETITIONER AND Smt. Y. Swarajya Lakshmi and others ....RESPONDENTS CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1528 OF 2010: Between: Smt. Y. Yogamba .....PETITIONER AND Smt. Y. Swarajya Lakshmi and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1528 & 1531 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the orders, dated 22.01.2010, in I.A.Nos.811 of 2008 and 423 of 2009, in O.S.No.851 of 2006, on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, whereunder and whereby, the petitions filed to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence in the suit and to set aside the eschewment order passed against respondent No.1 herein on 14.11.2008, were allowed. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the plaintiffs in the suit. Petitioner herein is defendant No.1 in the suit. Respondent No.1 herein was examined as PW.1. The chief affidavit of respondent No.1 herein was filed on 25.02.2008 and thereafter, she did not turn up for cross- examination. Therefore, the trial Court rightly eschewed the evidence of respondent No.1 herein. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed the present applications only to drag on the suit, without assigning any reasons; that no reasons are assigned by respondent No.1 herein for not attending the Court for cross- examination, in spite of giving several opportunities and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned orders. 4. No doubt, there are some laches on the part of respondent No.1 herein in not coming to the Court for cross-examination. But, at the same time, the suit was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein for declaration that the sale deed dated 24.06.2006, which was registered as document No.9561/06, in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1 in the suit as null, void and unenforceable. Therefore, the substantive rights of the parties are involved. The reason given by respondent No.1 herein is that due to ill-health i.e., Malaria fever, she could not come to the Court for cross-examination. So, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and to do substantial justice to the parties, one more opportunity can be given to respondent No.1 herein to present herself for cross-examination. Perhaps that might be the reason why the trial Court allowed the petitions on payment of costs, since there are some laches on the part of respondent No.1 herein. Therefore, the trial Court is directed to fix some date and on that date, respondent No.1 herein can be present before the trial Court for cross-examination. For any reason, if respondent No.1 herein fails to attend the trial Court on the date so fixed, by it, the evidence of respondent No.1 herein can be eschewed. 5. With the above modifications, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J June 11, 2010 MD