IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3982 OF 2009 Between: Nalmasu Srinivas … Petitioner (4th respondent/4th defendant) AND 1 Nalmasu Karunakar … Respondent (Petitioner/Plaintiff) 2 Gidigety Aruna 3. Kolipaka Sujatha 4. Chepuri Sharada … Respondents (Respondents 1 to 3/Defendants 1 o 3) The Court made the following : ORDER: This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 23.07.2009, in I.A.No.101 of 2009 in O.S.No.13 of 2005 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagitial, Karimnagar District, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to recall D.W.1 for further cross-examination was allowed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.4 contended that after filing of chief affidavit of D.W.2, the present petition is filed with a view to fill up the gaps which is not permissible and therefore, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 3. As seen from the impugned order, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff did not cross-examine D.W.1 with reference to the documents which are marked in the suit. Therefore, a proper explanation was given in the affidavit filed in support of the petition in the trial Court that the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff could not cross-examine D.W.1 properly in respect of exhibits filed by him. But, it is further stated in the affidavit that the material questions have not been put to D.W.1. It is an omnibus allegation. The material questions with reference to pleadings and evidence have not been specifically mentioned in the affidavit in support of the petition. 4. Therefore, the order, dated 23.07.2009, in I.A.No.101 of 2009, in O.S.No.13 of 2005, is confined only to the cross-examination of D.W.1 with regard to the documents which are marked in the cross-examination of D.W.1. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (K.C. BHANU, J Date: 2nd September, 2009 KL/MD