HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1192 OF 2008 DATE:22-12-2010 BETWEEN Jaggayyapet Pattana Padmasali Sangam, Rep. by its Secretary Vaddepalli Veerabrahmam …Petitioner AND Tumma Venkanna (died) per L.Rs. & Others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1192 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed by the plaintiff to revise the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Jaggaiahpet in I.A.No.40 of 2008 in O.S.No.471 of 2004, dated 22.2.2008 dismissing the petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 C.P.C. to receive the evidence in-chief of P.Ws.3 to 5, 7 to 9, 11, 12, 14 to 16, 18 to 24, 26, 27, 29 to 34, 37 to 39, 41, 42, 44 to 59 which was eschewed on the ground that the plaintiff has not cooperated for the cross-examination. Petitioner-plaintiff instituted the above suit for declaration and filed affidavits in lieu of chief-examination of 59 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 59 in which, a commissioner was appointed on 9.3.2007 to record the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 59. Later the Advocate-commissioner after taking seven months time returned the warrant on 10.9.2007 reporting that he could cross-examine P.Ws.1 to 6, 10, 13, 17, 25, 28, 35, 36, 40 and 43 only and that the plaintiff is not producing the other witnesses and not cooperating to execute the warrant. On returning the warrant, a conditional order was passed by the Court directing the plaintiff to produce all the remaining witnesses on 14.9.2007, failing which, their evidence in chief would be eschewed. In spite of the said conditional order, the plaintiff failed to produce those witnesses. After eschewing their evidence, the matter was posted for the evidence of defendants and that even after examination of defendants 1 to 3, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to cross-examine them and hence, their cross-examination was treated as ‘nil’. At that stage, the same counsel who reported no instructions for the plaintiff, filed vakalat for plaintiff and filed petitions to reopen the evidence and to recall D.Ws.1 to 3. The said petitions were allowed and D.Ws.1 to 3 were recalled and cross-examined by plaintiff and the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the plaintiff filed the impugned application to restore the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, 7 to 9, 11, 12, 14 to 16, 18 to 24, 26, 27, 29 to 34, 37 to 39, 41, 42, 44 to 59. Considering the said attitude of the plaintiff, the Court below rightly held that the plaintiff was interested only in protracting the matter and not evincing any interest to proceed with the arguments and rightly dismissed the impugned I.A. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 22, 2010 Tsr.