IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION CASE NO:833 OF 2010 DATED:16.7.2010 Between: R.Srinivas .....PETITIONER AND Smt.R.Vijaya .....RESPONDENT This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION CASE NO:833 OF 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 18.2.2010 passed in I.A.No:86 of 2010 in O.S.No:89 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. The petitioner herein is the petitioner in I.A.86 of 2010 filed under order 18 rule 17 C.P.C seeking to recall P.w.1 for the purpose of cross examination. The said application is dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. The petitionerI herein filed I.A.86 of 2010 under order order 18 rule 17 C.P.C read with section 151 C.P.C seeking to recall P.w.1 for the purpose of cross examination on behalf of the petitioner herein. In support of the said application, he filed an affidavit stating O.S.89 of 2006 was filed by the respondent- plaintiff for recovery of certain amount. The said case was posted to 20.2.2010 for the cross examination of P.w.1 and that he has filed a petition for adjournment on the ground that he applied for certified copy of deposition in a criminal case in C.C.No:93 of 2008 and the said petition was dismissed. If P.w.1 is not recalled for the purpose of cross examination, he would be put to irreparable loss which cannot be compensated at the later stage. Therefore, he filed the petition seeking to recall P.w.1 for the purpose of cross examination. A counter affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent- plaintiff before the lower Court contending that the said I.A is not maintainable and the petitioner-defendant willfully avoided to cross examine P.w.1 having taken a number of adjournments, only with a view to drag on the matter. Having considered the said submissions, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the said application. The point for consideration is as to whether the order impugned warrants interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. While issuing notice before admission on 5.3.2010, the petitioner was permitted to take personal notice to respondent. In C.R.P.M.P.1442 of 2010, this Court granted interim stay on 12.3.2010 for a period of three Weeks and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time. Though notice has been served on the respondent, no appearance has been made on her behalf. The matter is listed under the caption of admission. There is no representation made on behalf of the respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner who is present argued the matter. Having regard to the nature of the relief sought for in the revision petition and the nature of the order passed in I.A.No:86 of 2010 and the nature of the relief sought for in the suit, this Court is inclined to dispose of the revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein is the defendant and the suit in O.S.89 of 2006 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the defendant on the ground that there was memorandum of understanding between the defendant and the plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- relating to the retirement benefits of late Chinnaiah, father of the defendant. It is further submitted that the defendant is the son of late Chinnaiah through his first wife and the plaintiff is the second wife of late Chinnaiah and late Chinnaiah was working in the Forest Department. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the reason for non examination of P.w.1 by the defendant, was that he was waiting for the copies of depositions in C.C.93 of 2008 which was registered against the defendant in connection with a case of bouncing of the cheque which was issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff in connection with the suit amount and therefore, the suit amount and the amount mentioned in the cheque was one and the same and the defendant wanted to take advantage of the deposition made by him before the Criminal Court. The learned counsel further submitted that for that purpose, he wanted the matter to be adjourned. But, without considering the same, the I.A was dismissed on the ground that it is an identified case for early disposal. Merely because, the suit was relating to 2006, the fact remains that it is only on 10.2.2009 to which date the suit was posted for filing the chief affidavit and apart from that, there is no material on record that the petitioner is responsible for commencement of trial in the year 2009 belatedly. In this view of the matter and in view of the relationship between the parties and in view of the nature of the proceedings, I am of the opinion that if an opportunity is afforded to the petitioner, no prejudice would cause to the otherside and thereby, it is a fit case to set aside the order impugned. Therefore, the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order passed in I.A.No:86 of 2010 in O.S.No:89 of 2010 on 18.2.2010 and consequently, I.A.No:86 of 2010 is allowed. The learned Senior Civil Judge is directed to reopen the matter and proceed in accordance with law. ____________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Date:16.7.2010 gurc THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:833 OF 2010 16TH July, 2010