THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P No.724 of 2010 Date:09.06.2010 Between: Gottam Anji Reddy, Alair Mandal, Nalgonda District. Petitioner And Arutla Santhosh Reddy, Kolanpaka village, Nalgonda District. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P No.724 of 2010 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20.11.2009 passed in I.A.No.881 of 2009 in O.S.No.323 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the defendant to reopen the case for further evidence on his behalf and to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for the purpose of further cross-examination. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 25.2.2010. The respondent received notice and entered appearance through a counsel. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the counsel engaged by the petitioner/defendant in the lower court failed to cross- examine P.Ws.1 to 3 on vital aspects, and, therefore, the petitioner/defendant changed the counsel and moved application to reopen the case for further evidence and to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for further cross-examination. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also submits that for latches on the part of the counsel for the petitioner/defendant engaged by the petitioner/defendant in the trial Court, he cannot be made to suffer. 5. Learned counsel refers the cross-examination of P.W.1 to convince the Court that the cross-examination is not in tune with the pleadings of the petitioner/defendant in the written statement. I have gone through the written statement, which finds place at page No.19 of the material papers. What all stated in the written statement is that the plaintiff has fabricated the suit promissory note. There is no specific plea in the written statement that the signature of the defendant appearing on the suit pro-note is a rank of forgery. Indeed, the cross-examination of P.W.1 is in accordance with the pleas taken by the petitioner/defendant in the written statement. It is suggested to P.W.1 in the cross-examination that the plaintiff obtained his signatures on blank paper towards security of the chit transaction conducted by son of the plaintiff and fabricated Ex.A1-suit promissory note. For better appreciation, I may refer the cross-examination of P.W.1, which reads as under: “The Defendant is related to me. The defendant obtained loan from me for studies of her daughter and his Garden. The defendant is having more than 10 acres of land at Kolanpak village. I am having land adjacent to the land of defendant. I have paid Rs.82,500/- (825 x 100/-) to the defendant. One Akula Soma Lingam is the scribe of Ex.A1. One M.Swamy, Challa Mohan Reddy, Kaiti Kistha Reddy, Arutla Buchi Reddy, Saduvelli Yadagiri and Nomula Vasudev were the witnesses to Ex.A1. The name of my son is Vidyasager. He is working in Electricity Board. It is not true to suggest that I never paid Rs.82,500/- to the defendant, towards loan. I am not doing chit business. Witness adds his son is doing chit business. It is not true to suggest that the defendant was subscriber of the chit fund business, of my son and that when the defendant lifted chit amount. We obtained his signature on blank paper towards security and that subsequently created Ex.A1 on it. I do not know whether the defendant, after coming to know about Ex.A1, filed a complaint before S.P and D.S.P stating that we are trying to create the document on the blank paper signed by him. It is not true to suggest that the defendant never obtained any loan from me and that he is not liable to pay any amount to me.” 6. The cross-examination of P.W.1 is in tune with the pleas taken by the petitioner/defendant in the written statement. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the counsel engaged by the petitioner/defendant earlier in the trail Court has not properly cross-examined P.W.1, has no substance. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the petitioner/defendant did not state on what aspect the counsel engaged by him earlier failed to cross- examine P.Ws.1 to 3, except making a bald allegation that the counsel engaged by him earlier had not cross- examined properly. No specific ground has been urged by him to recall P.Ws.1 to 3. The trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the application. I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the order impugned in the revision warranting interference of the Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. No costs. ______________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:09.6.2010 mrb