IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.687 OF 2010 Between : C.M.Sudhakar .... PETITIONER A N D K.V.Hari Prasad and others. …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.687 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 11.11.2009, in I.A.No.100 of 2009 in I.P.No.17 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur, whereunder and whereby, the application, filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), to recall R.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination, was dismissed on the ground that though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner herein to cross-examine R.W.1 before the Advocate Commissioner, the petitioner has not availed the opportunity. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is not a case of taking unnecessary adjournments, where the petitioner wantonly omitted to cross-examine R.W.1; that for the reason that his counsel requested the Commissioner to adjourn the case as he would be unavailable on the date so fixed for cross examination, but the Commissioner closed the evidence; that number of documents were filed in the absence of his counsel and cross-examination with reference to those documents is necessary and, therefore, the valuable right of the petitioner has been curtailed by the trial Court and, hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that in spite of giving several opportunities to the petitioner, the petitioner has not availed the same; that earlier also the petitioner filed a petition to recall R.W.1 and it was dismissed; that therefore, the present petition is not maintainable and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 4. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to examine R.W.1. R.W.1 was examined in chief before the commissioner. Admittedly, the counsel for the petitioner has not cross- examined R.W.1. Right to cross-examine is a valuable right conferred upon the opposite party so as to put forward the defence to substantiate the case. If a party wantonly or deliberately avoids to cross-examine a witness, then the Court or the Commissioner, as the case may be, are justified in closing the cross-examination. As seen from the additional material paper filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Court below, it cannot be said that it a case of willful laches on the part of the counsel for the petitioner in not cross-examining R.W.1. At no point of time, the counsel for the petitioner took adjournment unnecessarily. There are genuine reasons for the learned counsel for the petitioner to postpone the cross-examination of the witness, as the documents were not available with him and further requested the Commissioner to postpone the case as he would be away from town on the date so fixed. Therefore, the observation of the trial Court that sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner cannot be accepted. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that a similar petition under Section 151 CPC was dismissed. No doubt, a party cannot be permitted to file petition after petition for the same purpose. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed the affidavit filed in support of the petition to recall R.W.1 for the purpose of cross- examination of R.W.1. But, it is the Advocate, who filed the petition under Section 151 CPC to recall R.W.1. That cannot be a ground to dismiss the application. Therefore, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to cross-examine R.W.1. For that purpose the trial Court shall fix a date for the presence of R.W.1 in the Court or before the Advocate Commissioner, and on that date the counsel for the petitioner shall cross-examine R.W.1 without seeking any adjournments. Further, for any reason, if the date so fixed by the trial Court for cross-examining R.W.1 has not been availed by the counsel for the petitioner, the order of the trial Court shall be given effect. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J FEBRUARY 07, 2011. YVL