HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2799 of 2010 Between: Pappu Shankukha Rao and others … Petitioners And Dirisina Kameswaramma and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2799 of 2010 ORDER:- Petitioners, who are defendant Nos.8 to 10 in the suit, filed this revision to revise the order of the Principal District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry passed in I.A.No.674 of 2009 in O.S.No.84 of 2004, dated 07.08.2009, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners to reopen the matter for the purpose of further cross-examination of P.W.4, has been dismissed. When P.W.4 the Officer of the State Bank of India was examined on behalf of defendant Nos.6 and 7, the advocate commissioner appointed for the said purpose recorded that the cross-examination of P.W.4 done on behalf of defendant Nos.6 and 7 was adopted by petitioners/defendant Nos.8 to 10. When the matter is posted for further evidence of defendant Nos.6 and 7, the present petition is filed by the petitioners stating that, in the absence of their advocates, after recording cross-examination done on behalf of defendant Nos.6 and 7 by the Advocate Commissioner, it was recorded that such cross-examination of defendant Nos.6 and 7 was adopted as cross-examination on the petitioners also, which is not true. Further, in the cross-examination of P.W.4 some aspects which are not covered in the cross-examination on behalf of defendant Nos.6 and 7 and also with reference to the facts which are relevant to their case is highly essential and, therefore, the matter should be reopened for the purpose of cross-examination of P.W.4 on behalf of the petitioners also. The trial court rightly dismissed the same holding that the averments are unbelievable since the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court will not record that he adopted the cross- examination done for defendant Nos.6 and 7 as cross-examination to be done on behalf of petitioners also. The advocate should have taken appropriate measures at the appropriate time. Further, the affidavit of the advocate, who has reserved his right for cross-examination on behalf of defendant Nos.8 to 10, have not been filed to substantiate the plea as to who was present according to the endorsement made by the Advocate commissioner on their cross-examination. In the absence of the same, the plea taken by the petitioners is only an after thought. In view of the same, I see no grounds to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial court. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 27th August 2010 lmv