HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1461 OF 2010 Friday, the Ninth day of April, Two Thousand and Ten Between Smt. Saraswathi Devi and another Petitioners AND C.Vittal Rao and another Respondents THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1461 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the plaintiff against the order, dated 5.02.2010 passed by the learned X Addl. Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing I.A. No. 408 of 2009 in O.S. No.207 of 2006 filed under Sec. 151 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the order dated 06.02.2008 eschewing the evidence of PW1. The petitioners herein filed the above suit for specific performance of the contract of sale dated 8.7.2003 and 9.7.2003 to direct the respondent No.1 herein to execute registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule A and B properties by receiving the balance sale consideration. Their case is that on 30.01.2008, the first plaintiff was partly cross examined and the suit was posted to 6.02.2008, but as she fell ill from 03.02.2008 to 21.10.2009 and hospitalized, the impugned order was passed on 6.02.2008 on the memo filed by their counsel, without either their consent or knowledge. The case of the respondents herein is that the first plaintiff never fell ill. On 30.01.2008, she was partly cross examined and it was adjourned to 2.2.2008 and at her request, it was posted to 6.2.2008 and the medical certificate dated 21.10.2009 is created. It is further stated that on her instructions only, their counsel filed the Memo to eschew her evidence, as they were not able to overcome the admissions made during the course of evidence and she was not interested to give evidence. The present petition is filed to drag on the proceedings. On consideration of the material available on record, the court below dismissed the petition observing that when the evidence of PW1 is eschewed on the memo filed their counsel himself, the relief sought for to set aside the said order cannot be granted. Aggrieved thereby the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. As can be seen from the record, the first plaintiff was cross examined by the Commissioner on 30.01.2008 and it was again posted to 2.2.2008 and it was further adjourned to 6.2.2008 on which date a memo was filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs to the effect that since PW-1 was hospitalized, her evidence may be eschewed. PW-2 was examined in the month of April, 2008 and thereafter PWs 3 and 4 were also examined and the present petition was filed on 30.10.2009. Therefore, the contention that Memo was filed by their previous counsel without their consent is incorrect inasmuch as the present counsel filed his vakalath on 2.4.2008 itself. Had their contention been true, nothing prevented the petitioners from filing the present petition soon after the impugned order was passed. The court below had considered the issue at length and rightly concluded that the petition is liable to be dismissed. Having gone through the impugned order, I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this court. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2006, I deem it appropriate to direct the court below to dispose of the suit as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari April 09, 2010 MAS