IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.619 AND 719 OF 2010 Between in C.R.P.No.619 OF 2010 : M.V.Seshaiah .... PETITIONER A N D The Deputy Director …RESPONDENT Between in C.R.P.No.719 OF 2010 : M.V.Seshaiah .... PETITIONER A N D The Deputy Director …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.619 AND 719 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the common order, dated 03.02.2010, in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2010 in M.P.No.66 of 2004, on the file of the Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Anantapur, whereunder and whereby, I.A.No.2 of 2010 filed for reopening the case for further cross examination of R.W.1; and I.A.No.3 of 2010, filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’), to recall R.W.1 for further cross- examination with regard to material documents, were dismissed on the ground that the petitions were filed with an intention to drag on the proceedings. 2. Heard. 3. If the petition filed to recall R.W.1 is to be allowed it follows that the other I.A. filed by the petitioner to reopen the suit has to be allowed. The question is whether there are any grounds to allow the petition filed to recall R.W.1 for the purpose of further cross- examination? 4. The power to recall a witness can be exercised by the Court any stage of the suit. But, the power in extraordinary in nature and must be exercised judiciously in the interests of justice. If the Court is satisfied that the party applying to recall witness could not remain present earlier or sufficient cause is shown for recalling such witness, the Court may grant the prayer by exercising discretion in his favour 5. It is not in dispute before this Court that R.W.1 was cross- examined on 12.11.2009. Admittedly, the petitioner was not present when his counsel cross-examined R.W.1. So immediately on 09.01.2010, the petitioner herein filed a petition to recall R.W.1 as important material questions have not been put to R.W.1 in the cross examination because of his absence on the date of examination of R.W.1. So, under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the petition is filed with a view to drag on the proceedings, as the petitioner was not admittedly present when the counsel cross-examined R.W.1. If he was present on that day, some instructions would have been given to his counsel. Therefore, possibility of not giving full instructions to his counsel to cross examine R.W.1, cannot be ruled out. Therefore, it is a fit case where some more opportunity can be given to the petitioner, so that he would instruct his counsel to cross- examine the witness. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the common order, dated 03.02.2010 in I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2010 in M.P.No.66 of 2004 on the file Chairman-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Anantapur and consequently the applications filed by the petitioner are allowed. The Tribunal is directed to fix a date for further cross-examination of R.W.1 and on that day, the further cross-examination of R.W.1 shall be completed without taking any adjournments. However, it is made clear that since the M.P. is filed to direct the respondent to refund the deducted amount, the petitioner is not entitled to adduce any further evidence on that aspect. After closure of cross-examination of R.W.1, the miscellaneous petition shall be disposed of within a period of four weeks. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU. J JANUARY 31, 2010. YVL