THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NOs. 1538 and 1540 of 2010 DATE: 29.7.2011 BETWEEN: Ravipudi Nageswara Rao petitioner And Ravipudi Chinna Venkateswarlu and ors Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : EVSS Acharyulu Counsel for the respondents : Sri V Ravindranath Reddy The Court made the following order: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NOs. 1538 and 1540 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Since the parties and issue raised in these two revisions is similar, they are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioner is plaintiff and respondents are defendants. These revisions are filed against the orders passed in I.A. No. 1717 and 1716 of 2009 dated 25.2.2010. In the affidavit filed before the Court below, it is stated that plaintiff himself was examined as P.W. 1 and documents in Ex.A.1 to A.7 were marked and on behalf of defendants, the third defendant was examined as D.W.2 and marked partition list in Ex.B.1 and the matter is coming up for further examination. It is further stated that the plaintiff requires to mark some other documents to establish his case and therefore filed applications to reopen the evidence of plaintiff and to recall P.W. 1 for further evidence. The said applications were allowed by docket order dated 25.2.2010 subject to conditions that he should get ready for further chief examination on 3.3.2010 failing which petition shall stands dismissed. That on 3.3.2010 P.W.1 was present but reported not ready for further chief examination and since the conditional order was not complied with, the petition was dismissed. Hence, these revisions. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 3.3.2010 P.W.1 was present, but since his counsel was not ready, he reported ‘not ready’ and sought time and the Court below ought to have afforded one opportunity to plaintiff and erred in dismissing the petition on the ground of non compliance of conditional order dated 25.2.2009. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court does not see any justification on the part of the petitioner in dragging on the matter in a suit which was filed about six years back. However, having regard to the fact that the suit is filed for partition and the contention of the plaintiff that he wants to reopen his evidence to mark the documents to establish his case, this Court deems it fit to give one opportunity subject to certain conditions. In the circumstances, the impugned orders in I.A. Nos. 1717 and 1716 of 2009 dated 25.2.2010 are set aside subject to condition of petitioner deposits costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only ) to the Secretary, Guntur District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and make himself available for further examination before the Court below within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failure to comply with the above conditions, the revision petitions stand dismissed and the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 1717 and 1716 of 2009 dated 25.2.2010 holds good and it would be open for the Court below to proceed further with the matter. Further, it is brought to the notice of this Court that first respondent/first defendant died, as such, the petitioner-plaintiff to take necessary steps to get the legal representatives of first respondent/first defendant on record. Accordingly, the revision petitions are disposed of. No costs. ______________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE: 29.7.2011 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NOs. 1538 and 1540 of 2010 DATE: 29.7.2011