THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3692 of 2010 (Dated : 15-07-2011) Between: S.Md.Habibullah ….…Petitioner. A n d Syed Abdul Nzeer ….…Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3692 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 16.7.2010 passed in I.A.No.393 of 2009 in O.S.No.251 of 2004 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Rajampet, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff to reopen the suit for further evidence on his behalf. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 18.8.2010. Despite notice being served on the respondent, none appears on his behalf. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not cross-examine the witness of the respondent/defendant on 03.7.2009, since the counsel appearing on his behalf reported no instructions. Consequently, the cross- examination of D.W.1 came to be recorded as ‘nil’ and the case stood posted for judgment. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.393 of 2009 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the suit so as to enable him to cross-examine D.W.1. 5. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that he was not aware of his counsel withdrawing the vakalath on his behalf on 3.7.2009. The respondent/defendant filed counter resisting the said application. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the application lacks bonafidies and there by proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 16.7.2010. Hence this revision. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was not aware of his counsel reporting no instructions on his behalf before the trial Court on 03.7.2009 and on coming to know of his counsel reporting no instructions, he moved the application on 17.8.2009 to reopen the suit so as to enable him to cross-examine D.W.1. 7. It is evident from the record that the counsel appearing for the petitioner before the trial Court reported no instructions on his behalf on 03.7.2009 and consequently cross-examination of D.W.1 came to be recorded as ‘nil’. Having considered the facts and circumstances, the application filed by the petitioner to reopen the case deserves to be allowed on certain conditions. 8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 16.7.2010 subject to the petitioner depositing costs of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand Rupees Only) before the trial Court within a week and he should proceed with the cross-examination of D.W.1 on the first day of listing the case. In the event of failure of any one of the above two conditions, the order impugned in the revision shall stand confirmed. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date:15.7.2011. mrb