HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1708 AND 1806 OF 2010 DATE:18-06-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1708 OF 2010 BETWEEN Ongolu Malladri & Another …Petitioners AND Koppisetti Venkata Lakshmi …Respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1806 OF 2010 BETWEEN Ongolu Malladri & Another …Petitioners AND Koppisetti Venkata Lakshmi …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1708 AND 1806 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions raise an identical question in the same suit and therefore, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. These revisions by the defendants are directed against the docket orders of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District, dated 7.4.2009 passed in I.A.Nos.127 and 126 of 2009 in O.S.No.19 of 2006 dismissing the applications filed to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 and to reopen the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, respectively. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition before the Court below, it was stated that when the suit was posted for trial on 17.12.2008, that the counsel for the defendants-petitioners herein was not present, that chief-affidavits of P.Ws.1 to 3 were filed, but the copies of the same were not served on the defendants, that the Court passed orders recording the cross- examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 as ‘nil’ and posted the suit for defendants’ side evidence. It was stated that there were no willful latches or negligence on the part of the defendants and therefore, sought to reopen the evidence and to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for the purpose of cross-examination. The lower Court by the impugned order dismissed both the applications holding that the defendants- revision petitioners falsely stated in the affidavit that the first defendant was present in the Court on 17.12.2008, but in fact, neither the first defendant nor his counsel was present on the said date or on the previous date i.e. on 15.12.2008. It was held that the revision petitioners having deliberately absented on the relevant dates came up with the present applications with false allegations. In spite of service of notice on the plaintiff-respondent herein in C.R.P.No.1708 of 2010, she has not chosen to put up appearance opposing the revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. Had the revision petitioners present in the Court on 17.12.2008 and knew about the recording the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 as ‘nil’, they would have filed the application to recall the order on the very next day or at least within reasonable time in consultation with their advocate. The very fact that the affidavit was sworn in on 4.2.2009 itself discloses that the revision petitioners were not present on 17.12.2008 before the Court below. However, the suit is based on a pronote for recovery of amount, in which the petitioners have already filed the written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiff, to which necessary issues were also framed. As the controversy is in a narrow compass, instead of dismissing the I.As. on technical grounds, the petitioners should be given an opportunity to contest the suit on merits. Therefore, on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- by the petitioners within two weeks from today, the impugned I.As. are allowed. The learned Senior Civil Judge shall fix a date for appearance of P.Ws.1 to 3 for the purpose of cross-examination, and that their traveling expenses for appearance should be paid from the amount of Rs.5,000/- so deposited by the revision petitioners and the rest of the amount should be credited to the District Legal Services Authority. In default of deposit of the amount within the stipulated time, the impugned I.As. shall stand dismissed. The revisions are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 18, 2010 Tsr.