THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3532 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 01.04.2009 passed in I.A.No.29 of 2009 in O.S.No.828 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, whereby and whereunder, the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. 2. Background facts of the case in a nut shell leading to the filing of the revision assailing the order passed in I.A.No.29 of 2009 in O.S.No.828 of 2005 are that the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that they are the owners and possessors of the suit schedule land bearing S.No.84/2/A/31, admeasuring Ac 21.00 situated at Pulmamidi Village, Kandukur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They also sought for perpetual injunction against the respondents/defendants. The defendants entered appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs. The trial in the suit has commenced. Plaintiffs examined their witnesses and closed evidence on their behalf and thereafter, the defendants commenced examination of witnesses on their behalf. DW-1 was examined on 15.12.2008 and Exs.B-1 to B-12 were marked on 15.12.2008. The case was posted to 23.12.2008 for cross-examination of DW-1. On 23.12.2008, the plaintiffs remained absent. There upon, the learned Judge recorded the cross-examination of DW-1 as nil and posted the case for further evidence. On 31.12.2008 the defendants reported no further evidence and accordingly, evidence came to be closed. The plaintiffs filed I.A.No.29 of 2009 on 31.12.2008 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with 151 C.P.C., to permit them to cross-examine DW-1. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that on 23.12.2008, the learned Senior Counsel engaged by them was un-well and therefore, they could not proceed with the cross-examination. The defendants filed counter resisting the application of the plaintiffs. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to make out any reasonable ground to recall DW-1 for cross-examination and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the application by order, dated 01.04.2009. The said order is assailed in this revision by the plaintiffs. 4. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 17.08.2009. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs could not cross-examine DW-1 on 23.12.2008 because of ill-health of the Senior Counsel engaged by them. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the petitioners/plaintiffs did not even choose to appear before the court on 23.12.2008 and sought an adjournment and therefore, there is no justification in the plea offered by them for their failure to cross-examine DW-1. 8. The property involved in the suit is a land admeasuring Ac 21.00. It can be said that the substantial rights of the parties are required to be adjudicated in the suit. The chief examination of DW-1 was completed and documents Exs.B-1 to B-12 were marked on 15.12.2008. The case was posted to 23.12.2008 for cross- examination of DW-1. It is the contention of the petitioners/plaintiffs that on 23.12.2008, they could not proceed with the cross-examination of DW-1 since the Senior Counsel engaged by them fell ill. Of course, this contention has been contradicted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the ground that the petitioners did not appear before the Court and sought for adjournment. 9. There is no dispute that the case was coming for the first time for cross-examination of DW-1 on 23.12.2008. It is not the case of the respondents/defendants that the case underwent many adjournments for cross-examination of DW-1. Since the rights of the parties in respect of considerable extent of the land is involved, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners/plaintiffs to cross-examine DW-1 on certain terms. 10. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is allowed setting aside the order dated 01.04.2009 passed in I.A.No.29 of 2009 in O.S.No.828 of 2005 subject to the following conditions: i. The petitioners shall pay costs of Rs.2,000/-to the defendants within a period of 15 days from today. ii. The petitioners shall complete the cross-examination of DW.1 in one sitting fixed by the trial court. If they fail to comply any of the above two conditions, the order passed by the trial court stands revived. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 18.11.2009 TJS/Stp