THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4914 of 2011 (Dated : 25-11-2011) Between: Giddaluru Parvathamma W/o G.Chandrasekhar Rao Aged about 53 years, Occ: Housewife R/o YSR Kadapa District ….Petitioner A n d Kethu Raghavendrudu S/o Narasimhulu R/o D.No.3/605, YMR Colony, Proddatur Town, YSR Kadapa District ….Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4914 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 22-9-2011 passed in I.A.No.1149 of 2011 in O.S.No.67 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Praddatur, Kadapa District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to recall PW-1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are certain ambiguities in the evidence of Pw-1 and they are required to be clarified by recalling him for further cross-examination. 4. I have gone through the affidavit filed in support of the recall petition. Para (3) of the affidavit reads as hereunder:- “ I submit that after evidence of Pw.2, I instructed my advocate for preparation of my chief examination affidavit to file the same on 18-07- 2011, while it is noticed that some of the factual aspects have to be subjected for further cross examination of Pw1 while before commencing my evidence just for the ends of justice, the non examination of those aspects are due to over sight and there is no any other intention in filing the petition. The cross examination of Pw1 could not serve any purpose and there is some ambiguity in respect of the things behind the agreement of sale under Ex.A1, thus it become most essence for me to recall the Pw.1 for further cross examination while before filing my chief examination”. 5. The trial Court proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the petitioner has not indicated in the affidavit as to on what aspects, Pw.1 is to be further cross-examined. The affidavit filed in support of the recall petition does not indicate on what aspects Pw.1 is required to be further cross-examined. Basing on such an affidavit, the order impugned in the revision cannot be interfered with. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application setting out the aspects on which Pw.1 is to be further examined. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.25-11-2011 RAR