THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.167 of 2010 Date: 26.3.2010 Between: Sri Ch. Bhupal Goud …. Appellant and Sri K. Vijaya Kumar and others. ….Respondents THE HONOURABLE Smt. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No.167 of 2010 Order: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator is absent on the last occasion as well as today. This revision is directed against the order dated 18th December, 2009 made in I.A. No. 51 of 2009 in O.S. No. 1313 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. The facts in brief are that the respondent-plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 1313 of 2007 against the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein, for setting aside the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No.1241 of 1999 on the ground that the said decree was obtained by playing fraud. In that suit, the respondent filed I.A. No. 51 of 2009 seeking to recall D.W.1 for further cross-examination. The trial Court, by the order impugned in this revision, allowed the said petition subject to payment of costs of Rs. 100/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that even though the evidence of D.W.1 was completed on 3.1.2009, the respondent filed the present application in I.A. No. 51 of 2009 for recalling D.W.1 for further cross examination in the month of November, 2009, i.e. after a period of eight months on the ground that due to the adamant attitude of D.W.1, he did not answer certain questions properly. He further contends that the respondent did not raise any objection before the Commissioner during the course of the cross-examination of D.W.1, in the absence of which, the trial Court was not justified in allowing the petition subject to payment of costs of Rs. 100/-. He further contends that the respondent also failed to pay the amount of costs of Rs.100/- awarded by the trial Court and even on this count also, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. He therefore, prayed that the revision be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, in the instant case, the cross-examination of D.W.1 was closed on 3.1.2009 and the respondent filed the present application in the month of November, 2010 after a period of nearly eight months after the closure of the evidence of D.W.1. If the respondent was really diligent enough in prosecuting the case, he ought to have filed an application for recalling of D.W.1 for further cross-examination immediately after closure of evidence. Further, if the respondent felt that D.W.1 was adamant or replying improperly to any questions , he ought to have brought the said fact to the notice of the Advocate Commissioner or raised an objection, but was not justified in filing the petition in question after a period of eight months. That apart, there is no evidence on record to show that the Advocate Commissioner, who has recorded the evidence of D.W.1, has recorded any demeanour of witness. The trial Court having recorded a finding that no such demeanour of the witness was observed by the Advocate-Commissioner, was not justified in allowing the I.A. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. ___________________ T. MEENA KUMARI,J Date: 26th March, 2010 pnb