THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.534 of 2010 And 535 of 2010 Dt.18.6.2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.534 of 2010 And 535 of 2010 Smt.N.Saraswathi … Petitioner Vs. 1. M.Chandrasekhar Reddy and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.534 of 2010 And 535 of 2010 C O M M O N O R D E R: Since the petitioner and the subject matter in both the revision petitions are one and the same. These two revision petitions are heard together and decided by this common order. These two Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order, dated 12.6.2009, passed in I.A.No.595 of 2009 and order dated 29.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.1142 of 2002 in O.S.No.1260 of 2002 by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The petitioner in both the CRPs is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioner herein filed the suit in O.S.No.1260 of 2002 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati for grant of permanent injunction against the defendants. After closing the plaintiff’s evidence, the matter was posted for the defendants’ evidence and the chief-affidavit of DWs 1 and 2 were filed and the matter was posted for cross-examination of DWs 1 and 2. But as the counsel for the plaintiff was unable to cross-examine DWs 1 and 2, the evidence of DWs 1 and 2 was closed on 28.4.2009. Subsequently chief- affidavit of DW.3 was also filed. At that time, the petitioner filed I.A.No.595 of 2009 in O.S.No.1260 of 2002 to recall DWs 1 and 2 for the purpose of cross- examination by the plaintiff’s counsel and I.A.No.1142 of 2009 in O.S.No.1260 of 2002 was filed to recall DW3 for the purpose of cross- examination. Both the IAs were dismissed by orders dated 12.6.2009 and 29.10.2009 respectively. Heard both the counsel. It is stated that the plaintiff being a senior citizen of 72 years old, she filed the said suit for grant of permanent injunction. As the counsel for plaintiff was unable to cross-examine DWs 1 and 2, the plaintiff may not be subjected to serious and irreparable loss for the lapse on the part of her counsel before the Court below. Hence, I am of the opinion that so as to enable the plaintiff to give a reasonable opportunity and having regard to the facts and circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and IAs stands allowed. The CRP Nos.534 of 2010 and 535 of 2010 are accordingly allowed subject to the condition that DWs 1, 2 and 3 shall appear before the Court below on 05.7.2010 and on which date, the plaintiff’s counsel shall cross- examine all the three witnesses on the very same day ie., 05.7.2010. If the learned counsel for the plaintiff fails to cross-examine DWs 1 to 3 on 05.07.2010 though they are present, the impugned orders shall hold good. No costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH,J 18th June, 2010 PNV