THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2449 of 2010 BETWEEN: G. Lakshmi Devid, W/o. G. Prabhakar Reddy, Sarpanch, Ngireddipalli Village, R/o. Nagireddypalli Village, CK. Dinne Mandal, Kadapa District. PETITIONER And 1. Gunnikuntla Kondamma, W/o. Jayarami Reddy, @ Jail Reddy, R/o. Gundlavandlapalli, House of Buggalapalli, Chinthakommadinne Mandal, Kadapa District, and others. RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioners: Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy Counsel for Respondent: Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri The Court made the following Order: ORDER: The first respondent filed O.S.No.752 of 2007 in the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadapa, against the petitioner (defendant No.4) and respondents 2 to 4 for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction. The trial of the suit commenced and the evidence on behalf of the first respondent was concluded. Thereafter, the Tahsildar, the fourth respondent herein, deposed as DW.1. On an application filed by the petitioner herein, DW.1 was recalled and certain documents were filed through him. The first respondent filed I.A.No.372 of 2010 with a prayer to recall DW.1 to further cross-examine him in the context of the cross-examination of that witness by the petitioner herein. Through an order dated 23.03.2010, the trial Court allowed the I.A. The same is challenged in this revision petition. Heard Sri D. Kondanda Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondent. This is not a case where DW.1 was sought to be recalled by the first respondent soon after the evidence of that witness was concluded. After the evidence of DW.1 was recorded, it is the petitioner, who filed the I.A. to recall that witness. Once a defendant’s witness was recalled at the instance of the another defendant, the plaintiff gets a right to further cross-examine that witness, though it would be confined to the information elicited through the witness after he was recalled. The petitioner does not dispute that DW.1 was recalled at his instance and some information was elicited. It is true that the trial Court did not assign any reasons in support of its orders. It would have been better, had a detailed order been passed, but if one takes into consideration the pressure of work and the undisputed facts borne out by the record, the order cannot be said to be vitiated. Further, the witness is said to have already been recalled and cross-examined by the first respondent. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. 19th July, 2010 Js.