THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.3662 of 2009 Date: 20-11-2009 Between Pelluru Koteswara Rao … Petitioner/Decree-holder and 1. Sripati Venkataratnam and 2 others … Respondents/Respondents 4. Mandava Suresh … Respondent/Auction Purchaser 5. Sripati Krishna … Respsondent/Judgment-debtor THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.3662 of 2009 Oral Order: Despite service of notice, none appears for respondents nor there is any representation. 2. Heard Sri K.V.Subba Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 3. This revision is directed against the order and decree, dated 24-6-2009, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna district in dismissing the unnumbered execution application of 2009 in E.P.No.160 of 2004 in O.S.No.242 of 2001, filed by the petitioner/judgment-debtor under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of CPC, seeking to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination by petitioner/ respondent No.2. 4. The petitioner herein is decree-holder, respondents 1 to 3 are the claim petitioners, who are the mother, brother and sister of respondent No.5 herein; respondent No.4 is the auction purchaser and respondent No.5 is the judgment-debtor in the execution application in E.P., before the trial Court. 5. It appears that on 17-12-2008, learned Counsel for the petitioner/decree-holder since was not present, a sum of Rs.25/- was imposed as costs and the application was adjourned to 23-12-2008 on which date also, there was no representation for the learned Counsel for petitioner stating that the Counsel was away on account of pilgrimage. The said request was not accepted by the Court below and accordingly dismissed the said application with costs of Rs.200/- by closing the evidence of P.W.1. As a result, the petitioner had lost the opportunity of cross-examining P.W.1 by virtue of his application being filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of CPC being allowed. 6. From the docket proceedings of the Court below supplied to this Court, it appears that it is only the first occasion learned Counsel for the petitioner/decree-holder was reported to have gone on pilgrimage. 7. Though the Court below cannot be faulted in closing the evidence of P.W.1, I feel it expedient to give one more opportunity to the revision petitioner to cross-examine P.W.1 in the interest of justice. 8. In the result, the revision is allowed, at the stage of admission, by setting aside the order under revision. 9. The Court below is directed to permit the petitioner/decree-holder to cross-examine P.W.1 by fixing an early date and after putting both sides on notice. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 20th November, 2009. Ak