HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3832 OF 2009 DATE:22-01-2010 BETWEEN M/s.Orkayb Tobacco Dealers, Rep. by its Proprietor, Jasti Ramakrishna, R/o.Katavaram Village, Seethanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District & Another. …Petitioners AND The State Bank of India, Torredu, rep. by its Branch Manager, Torredu, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari District. …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3832 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision by the defendants is directed against the orders of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District dismissing I.A.No.878 of 2009 in O.S.No.524 of 2006 filed to recall P.W.1 to enable the defendants to adduce evidence by way of cross- examination and mark the documents through him. The respondent-Bank instituted the above suit against the petitioners and their guarantors-defendants 3 to 5 for recovery of Rs.5,92,287.40 ps. with subsequent interest and for passing a preliminary decree of mortgage against the plaint ‘A’ to ‘I’ schedule properties. The evidence was closed and the arguments on either side were heard and the suit was posted for further arguments of the petitioners herein and at that stage, the impugned I.A. was filed to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of marking certain documents through him, but the particulars of the documents that are sought to be marked through P.W.1 were not mentioned in the I.A. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that the title deed register pertaining to the loan transaction of the first defendant and the cheques under which, the amount was withdrawn from the account of first defendant and stock statement and other connected documents relating to first defendant loan transaction have to be marked through P.W.1. It is to be noted that when P.W.1 was cross-examined, no suggestion was put to him about the entries in the statement of account, which shows the withdrawal of the amounts from the first respondent’s account. In view of the same, marking of the cheques through P.W.1 by recalling does not arise. The title deed register pertaining to the loan transaction and the stock statement of the first defendant alone can be put to P.W.1 on his recalling for the purpose of marking the same as exhibits. Under those circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.878 of 2009 is allowed on condition of petitioners depositing a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) for recalling P.W.1 and on the date when the lower Court recalls P.W.1, the petitioners shall mark only the two documents as indicated above. In failure to deposit the costs of Rs.1,000/- within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the revision shall stand dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is allowed to the extent as indicated above. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JANUARY 22, 2010 Note: Office to issue C.C. in three days. (B/o) Tsr.