IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIRST (1ST) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4690 of 2010 Between: Maganti Anjani … Petitioner And: Koneru Satyanarayana & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4690 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 10.08.2010 in IA No.554 of 2009 in OS No.40 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order 18 Rule 3(A) and Section 151 of CPC, requesting the Court to permit the plaintiff to examine other witnesses before examining first plaintiff, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein/first plaintiff along with another filed suit for declaration of title based on a Will. The respondents/defendants filed written statement contesting the suit. Necessary issues were settled for trial. When the matter was coming up for trial, the husband of the first plaintiff filed IA No.554 of 2009 seeking permission of the Court to examine the other witnesses before the first plaintiff was examined on the ground that the first plaintiff met with an accident and sustained head injury and other severe injuries and also lost memory and therefore, she was unable to give evidence. It is stated that the first plaintiff met with an accident on 14.06.2005. The respondents opposed the said application. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first plaintiff though recovered to some extent from the road accident, she was again admitted to the hospital one week back owing to development of some tumor and is therefore, unable to give evidence. The accident is said to have occurred on 14.06.2005. The application before the trial Court was filed on 17.11.2008. As the first plaintiff virtually recovered from the injuries and also regained memory, it is considered that there is no impediment for her to give evidence at the first instance before examining the other witnesses. However, if she is unable to attend the Court owing to hospitalization recently, it is open to the petitioner to seek appointment of a Commissioner for recording her evidence. In fact, the impugned order also indicates such course of recording of evidence of the first plaintiff before the Commissioner. It is stated that the first plaintiff would be able to give evidence after about four weeks. 5. In the circumstances, it is directed that the first plaintiff be examined at the first instance after a period of four weeks before other witnesses are examined. In the event of the first plaintiff being unable to attend the Court even after four weeks, it is open to her to seek appointment of the Commissioner to record her evidence. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of with the above direction. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 01.02.2011 bss