THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.3098 AND 3102 OF 2007 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise out of the orders dated 15.06.2007 passed in I.A.Nos.443 and 444 of 2007 in M.V.O.P.No.1077 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dismissed both the applications filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {CPC} and under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC respectively. The petitioner-claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.1077 of 2004 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. He filed application to summon his employer-P.W.4 along with records. P.W.4 came to be examined in chief in part. Consequent upon the petitioner failing to examine him further, the learned Additional District Judge closed the evidence of P.W.4. Thereupon, the petitioner filed two applications, one being I.A.No.444 of 2007 under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 CPC to recall P.W.4 and another application being I.A.No.443 of 2007 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the case for adducing further evidence on his behalf. Learned Additional District Judge dismissed both the applications by orders dated 15.06.2007. Assailing the orders in I.As.No.443 and 444 of 2007, these two revisions are filed, respectively. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner summoned his employer-PW.4 along with records in order to depose with regard to employment and salary particulars of the petitioner, but P.W.4 did not bring the entire record and sought time to produce record. A further submission has been made that P.W.4 failed to turn up and consequently, the learned Additional District Judge closed the evidence of P.W.4. He would contend that for the fault of P.W.4 in not bringing the record, the petitioner should not be penalized for non-appearance of the witness on the next date of adjournment. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent that P.W.4 has been summoned to speak about the employment and salary particulars of the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.4 seems to be material in the given facts and circumstances. In that view of the matter, I find that these two revisions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders dated 15.06.2007 in I.A.Nos.443 and 444 of 2007 respectively. Consequently, I.A.Nos.443 and 444 of 2007 stand allowed. The petitioner shall pay the process for summoning P.W.4 for further examination and he shall complete the examination of P.W.4 in one sitting. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ (B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J) 22nd January 2010 RRB