THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition Nos.1671 and 2580 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two civil revision petitions arise out of the common order dated 02.03.2010 passed in I.A.Nos.14 and 15 of 2010 in O.S.No.508 of 2006 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District, and therefore they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Respondent herein is the plaintiff and petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.508 of 2006 filed before the Court below, for specific performance of agreement of sale said to have been entered into between the parties in respect of the suit schedule property. After evidence was adduced and arguments were advanced on behalf of both parties, the Court below reserved the suit for judgment on 03.03.2009. At that stage, the petitioner-defendant filed the present I.As., praying the Court below to recall P.W.1, the respondent-plaintiff, for further cross-examination and to re-open the suit for that purpose. In the affidavits filed in support of the present I.As., the petitioner-defendant pleaded that the respondent-plaintiff, in his evidence as P.W.1, deposed that he issued a cheque dated 06.02.2006, drawn on Canara Bank, Kadthal Branch, Mahabubnagar District, in favour of the defendant, and the defendant received the same and withdrawn the amount under cheque. The defendant pleaded that, in fact, no such cheque was issued in his favour and he had never withdrawn any amount as alleged by the plaintiff, but the counsel, who was appearing for him initially, did not cross-examine P.W.1 on this aspect and, therefore, it is necessary to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination, by reopening the suit. The respondent-plaintiff resisted the applications, by filing common counter. The Court below, after detailed consideration of the matter, dismissed both the applications, by the common order under revision. Hence, these two civil revision petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the order under revision and other material available on record. I have perused the copy of the deposition of the respondent- plaintiff as P.W.1 in the suit. It clearly indicates that P.W.1, in his cross-examination by the counsel for the petitioner-defendant, categorically deposed that he issued cheque in favour of the defendant and he was having bank account in Canara Bank of Kadthal Village, and he specifically denied the suggestion that he colluded with the bank officials, presented the cheque in question and withdrawn the amount by himself. Thus, the contention of the petitioner-defendant that P.W.1 was not cross-examined on the alleged issuance of cheque in his favour, cannot be accepted. Further, the respondent-plaintiff was cross-examined on 24.07.2008. The evidence of both parties was closed and they have also advanced their respective arguments and, thereafter, the matter was reserved for judgment. At that stage, the petitioner-defendant came up with the present applications. This apart, a perusal of the order under revision makes it clear that, after the suit is reserved for judgment, the petitioner has been filing petitions one after other, seeking to reopen the suit on one or the other ground. This conduct of the petitioner shows that he intends to drag on the matter. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the Court below has rightly dismissed the present I.As. by the order under revision and no interference is warranted with the same, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petitions are, accordingly, dismissed without costs. __________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA 14th July, 2010 IBL