HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRP No. 3165 of 2010 And CRP No. 3166 of 2010 And CRPNo. 3182 OF 2010 O R D E R: The defendant in OS No. 124 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhaptnam, which is a suit for permanent injunction in respect of the schedule property therein, is the revision petitioner herein. 2. After completion of the plaintiff’s evidence, Managing Director of the defendant by name Parachuri Raja Rao filed his affidavit in lieu of examination-in- chief as DW-1 and he did not turn up to the court for facing cross-examination, but filed a petition to appoint a Commissioner for his examination. The lower Court dismissed the said petition for appointing a commissioner to record DW.1’s cross-examination. Since the defendant was taking time, it appears that the lower court has closed the defendant’s evidence and posted the matter for arguments. At that stage, the defendant came up with three applications viz., one to reopen the case and one to permit the defendant to examine his power of attorney holder as witness and the other one to permit power of attorney holder to proceed with the matter. The lower Court dismissed all the said petitions. Observation of the lower court that since the suit was not posted for Judgment, there was no need to reopen the suit, is in accordance with law. The proper prayer should be to reopen defendant’s side case for leading his further evidence. 3. It is contended by the respondent’s senior counsel that the question of power of attorney holder facing cross-examination on an affidavit filed by the original defendant in lieu of his examination-in-chief, is not permissible in law. He contended that if the power of holder intends to give evidence, then he can be allowed to give the same by filing fresh chief affidavit and not continuing the proceedings on the chief affidavit filed by Raja Rao. 4. The suit in the lower court is of the year 2005 and it has been pending for the last five years in the lower court for disposal. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that opportunity has to be given to the defendant to adduce his further evidence subject to certain terms and conditions. 5. It is contended that the defendant should have filed the petition under O-XIII Rules-1 and 2 of CPC to receive documents and that the petition filed by the defendant under O-VIII R-2 CPC is not the proper provision. It is well settled principles of law that even though wrong provision of law is quoted nothing prevents the court to consider the petition under right provision of law. 6. CRP No. 3165 : In the result, the revision petition is allowed condoning the delay in filing the listed documents in IA No. 66 of 2010. No costs. 7. CRP No. 3166 : In the result, the revision petition is allowed subject to the defendant producing the original power of attorney and the power of attorney filing fresh affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief and after eschewing the affidavit of DW-1 filed previously on condition to pay Rs.1,000/- to District Legal Services Authority Visakhapatnam. No costs. 8. CRP No.3182 of 2010: In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt.16-12-2010 Mjl/*