THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4549 of 2010 ORDER: Respondent No.1 filed O.S.No.435 of 2005 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur against respondent No.2 and the petitioner for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale, dated 18.06.1994. The petitioner purchased that very property through sale deed, dated 09.06.1997. Respondent No.2 herein i.e. defendant No.1 in the suit remained ex parte. Recording of evidence of the plaintiff and the petitioner herein was concluded. At that stage, respondent No.2 filed an I.A. to set side the order through which he was set ex parte. The I.A. was allowed and as a consequence, he filed a written statement and an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. However, respondent No.1 failed to cross-examine him on the stipulated date. Therefore, the petitioner cross-examined D.W.3 and his evidence was closed. Respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.952 of 2009 under Rule 17 of Order 18 C.P.C. with a prayer to recall D.W.3 for cross- examination. The application was opposed by the petitioner. It was pleaded that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are brothers and if respondent No.2 as D.W.3 is recalled, he may support his brother. The trial Court allowed the I.A. through order, dated 07.08.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri M.N.Narasimha Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. The most important witness for respondent No.1 in the suit filed by him is respondent No.2 i.e. D.W.3; who is said to have executed the agreement of sale. The cross-examination of the executant of the agreement of sale assumes high significance in a suit for specific performance. Initially, respondent No.2 remained ex parte and thereafter, the order setting him ex parte was set aside. He has not only filed a written statement but also filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. Since the petitioner derives title from respondent No.2, his cross-examination is hardly of any significance. The actual person interested in cross- examining respondent No.2 is respondent No.1 himself. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the order passed by the trial Court. The apprehension of the petitioner that respondent No.2 may depose in favour of respondent No.1 in the cross-examination can be allayed by directing that in such an event, the petitioner shall have right to further cross-examine respondent No.2 i.e. D.W.3. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed, however, by directing that in case respondent No.2 deposes anything in favour of respondent No.1 i.e. the plaintiff in the suit, the trial Court shall give opportunity to the petitioner herein to further cross- examine the witness. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:08.10.2010. kdl