HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3014 and 3015 of 2011 Date:20.08.2011 CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.3014 of 2011 Between: Kotha Sailaja ..... Petitioner AND Thandu Ramesh and six others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.Narasimha Chari Counsel for Respondents : ---- AND CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.3015 of 2011 Between: Kotha Sailaja ..... Petitioner AND Thandu Ramesh and six others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri K.Narasimha Chari Counsel for Respondents : ---- The Court at the stage of admission made the following: COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of order, dated 20.06.2011, in I.A.Nos.86 and 87 of 2011 in O.S.No.110 of 2008 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar. The petitioner is defendant No.7 in O.S.No.110 of 2008 filed by respondent No.1 for partition of the suit schedule properties. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.86 of 2011 for reopening the evidence of the plaintiff (P.W-1) for his further cross-examination and I.A.No.87 of 2011 for recalling P.W-1 for his further cross-examination. Both these I.As having been dismissed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, these two Civil Revision Petitions are filed questioning the said orders. A perusal of the record shows that the Court below has dismissed the said applications on the reasoning that the chief-affidavit of P.W-1 was filed on 15.06.2010; that the case was adjourned from time to time; that on 27.12.2010, P.W-1 was cross-examined in part and at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, further cross-examination of P.W-1 was deferred; that on 03.02.2011, P.W-1 was further cross-examined; that the chief-affidavit of P.W-2 was filed thereafter; and that P.W-2 was cross-examined on 01.03.2011. At that stage, the petitioner engaged a new counsel and filed I.A.No.86 of 2011 on 16.03.2011. The Court below also observed that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner for cross-examining the witnesses and that the affidavit filed in support of the said application was too vague as to the purpose for which the petitioner wanted to cross-examine P.W-1. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner failed to make out any case for interference by this Court with the impugned orders. As rightly pointed out by the Court below, the petitioner failed to put forth specific reasons for recalling P.W-1 for his further cross-examination, except stating that the cross- examination of P.W-1 is not in consonance with the written statement. In my opinion, such a reason cannot constitute a ground for recalling P.W-1. After a careful consideration of the reasons contained in the impugned orders of the Court below, I am of the opinion that that the same do not suffer from any material illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petitions, C.R.P.M.P.No.4310 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th August, 2011 DR