THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3028 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri P.Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/third defendant and Sri M.Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff. Respondents 2 and 3/defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.391 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Sanga Reddy, Medak District, did not enter their appearance before this Court. I.A.No.745 of 2010 is a petition filed in O.S.No.391 of 2007 by the third defendant to reopen the proceedings for further cross examination of the witnesses on behalf of the third defendant. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that that petition was ordered to be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.200/- but as per the practice in vogue at that place instead of paying costs to the witness, as directed by the Court, the costs were paid to the Bar Association and a memo was filed into the Court accordingly. The impugned order was passed by the trial Court stating that the third defendant was not ready for cross examination in spite of allowing the petition on condition and the third defendant also did not pay the costs to the witness, but paid to the Bar Association and therefore, finding no justification for keeping the interlocutory application pending and granting time, the trial Court dismissed the same. The third defendant is before this Court in this revision contending that when the costs payable to the witness were paid to the Bar Association as per the resolution of the Bar Association, the order of the trial Court must be deemed to have been complied with. The adjournment was sought for as the counsel was out of station in connection with the marriage of a relation and not due to any delay on the part of the third defendant himself in the suit involving rights over immovable property. The revision petitioner, therefore, desired the impugned order to be reversed. The order of the trial Court allowing the application on payment of costs was not challenged in any manner by either party and the act of indiscretion on the part of the third defendant to have paid the costs to the Bar Association without any specific order or permission of the Court could not have been an act of the third defendant in person but could have been only an act of his counsel as per the prevailing practice of that place due to which the technical lapse occurred. The third defendant need not be deprived of the opportunity of cross examining the witness in the suit involving valuable rights over immovable properties. The reason for seeking an adjournment on that day was also stated to be due to the personal inconvenience of the counsel but not the party and for the lapse of the counsel, the party need not suffer. Taking an over all view of all the facts and circumstances, it would be therefore in the interests of justice to impose further costs to compensate the inconvenience caused to the witness and give one more final opportunity to the third defendant to cross examine the witness. In the result, the third defendant/revision petitioner shall pay twice the amount of costs imposed by the trial Court to the witness in question direct under acknowledgment within a period of two {2} weeks from the date of communication of this order to the trial Court and in default of payment of such costs, I.A.No.745 of 2010 shall stand dismissed. In the event of compliance with the condition to pay the costs, I.A.No.745 of 2010 shall stand allowed and the suit be posted for cross examination of the witness in question by the third defendant. In the event of the third defendant not availing the opportunity given to cross examine the witness reasonably, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed further in accordance with law in the suit. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 22nd October 2010 RRB