THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.557 & 655 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are connected with each other and parties are common. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The respondent filed O.S.No.428 of 2006 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner for a decree for damages. The trial of the suit commenced. The evidence on behalf of the respondent was concluded. On behalf of the petitioner, an affidavit in lieu of the chief-examination was filed. At the time of cross examination, an objection was raised as to the authenticity to depose on behalf of the petitioner. It is stated that on an earlier occasion, xerox copy of the G.P.A. was furnished and the cross-examination was confined to the authenticity of the witness to depose. The petitioner filed I.A.No.3351 of 2009 under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. with a prayer to recall D.W.1. He has also filed I.A.No.3352 of 2009 under Order VIII Rule 1 C.P.C. with a prayer to receive the original of G.P.A. by condoning the delay. Both the applications were opposed by the respondent. Through a common order, dated 20.11.2009, the learned Chief Judge dismissed the applications. Hence, these two revisions. Heard Smt.Manjiri S.Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthi, learned counsel for the respondent. After the affidavit in lieu of the chief-examination of D.W.1 was filed, the respondent made an effort to know his authenticity. There is no denial of the fact that D.W.1 stated that he is deposing in the capacity of G.P.A. holder. There is some controversy as to whether a xerox copy of the G.P.A. was filed at the initial stage. Be that as it may, to substantiate the contention that D.W.1 was empowered through G.P.A. by the petitioner herein, the original thereof was sought to be filed and an application was filed with a prayer to recall D.W.1 The trial Court referred to the events that have taken place ever since D.W.1 was subjected to cross-examination. It is not as if any material admission was extracted from or elicited through D.W.1 and that the same is sought to be neutralized by recalling him. It appears that the cross-examination, touching on the merits of the matter, was not undertaken, since the witness did not file the original of G.P.A. No allegation is made to any admission or other information extracted from him. This Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in case the applications are allowed. On the other hand, the trial would become complete and perfect. Hence, the civil revision petitions are allowed and the orders under revisions are set aside. Consequently, I.A.Nos.3351 and 3352 of 2009 are allowed. It is, however, made clear that D.W.1 shall not be subjected to further chief-examination, except for the limited purpose of marking the original of G.P.A. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:06.07.2010 kdl