The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.5820 of 2010 & Civil Revision Petition No.1631 of 2012 Date: 12.06.2012 C.R.P.No.5820 of 2010: Yalla Danayya @ Danaraju … Petitioner and S. Ananthacharyulu and others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Ch. Srinivas Counsel for the respondents : None C.R.P.No.1631 of 2012: Yalla Dhanayya @ Dhana Raju … Petitioner and Sampara Venkata Krishna and others … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. P. N. Murthy Counsel for respondent No.1 : Mr. P.B.Vijay Kumar Counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5: None The Court made the following : Common Order: The parties are common to both these cases. Hence, they are heard and being disposed of together. Respondent No.1 in C.R.P.No.5820 of 2010 instituted A.T.C.No.29 of 2005 in the Court of the learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada for eviction of respondent Nos.3 to 5 and the petitioner from the petition schedule land. During the pendency of the said case, as respondent No.1 died, respondent Nos.2 and 6 were brought on record as his legal representatives. During the course of evidence, respondent Nos.2 and 6 filed I.A.No.1805 of 2010 for further evidence on their side. The said petition was allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner’s counsel shall cross-examine P.W.1 on the next date of hearing. Accordingly, the case was posted to 21.09.2010 on which date P.W.2 could not be cross-examined by the petitioner’s counsel. Subsequently, a petition was filed under Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for extension of time for cross-examining P.W.2. The said petition was allowed and the case was adjourned to 27.09.2010. On that day, the petitioner filed I.A.No.2161 of 2010 for granting two weeks’ time for cross-examining P.W.2. This application was dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that even though the petitioner was afforded two opportunities, he could not avail the same. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.5820 of 2010. Apprehending that the learned Special Officer-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada is biased against the petitioner, he filed T.O.P.No.31 of 2012 in the Court of the learned District Judge, Rajahmundry for transfer of A.T.C.No.29 of 2005 to the Court of the learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The learned District Judge dismissed the said application by order dated 07.03.2012. Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.1631 of 2012. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the record. With regard to C.R.P.No.5820 of 2010, I am of the opinion that the learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada should have been more flexible in accommodating the petitioner. It is no doubt true that on two occasions, the petitioner could not cross-examine P.W.2. But, by closing the evidence, the right of the petitioner to cross- examine P.W.2 is forfeited. The lower Court ought to have made a liberal approach by giving at least one more chance to the petitioner. On the facts of the case, I am of the opinion that the interests of both the parties would be balanced, if the petitioner is put on reasonable terms for permitting him to cross-examine P.W.2. Accordingly, I.A.No.2161 of 2010 is allowed subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as costs to respondent Nos.2 and 6 within two weeks from today. On proof of payment of costs, the petitioner shall be permitted to cross-examine P.W.2. With regard to the order dated 07.03.2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Rajahmundry in T.O.P.No.31 of 2012, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. The transfer application was filed on the mere apprehension of bias which the petitioner failed to substantiate. The learned District Judge has rightly dismissed the transfer application. For the aforesaid reasons, C.R.P.No.5820 of 2010 is allowed subject to the condition of the petitioner paying Rs.5,000/- to respondent Nos.2 and 6 as costs within the time stipulated above and C.R.P.No.1631 of 2012 is dismissed. The learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada is directed to dispose of A.T.C.No.29 of 2005 within three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. As a sequel, interim stay granted on 03.04.2012 in C.R.P.No.1631 of 2012 is vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.2159 of 2012 in C.R.P.No.1631 of 2012 is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 12th June, 2012 Note: Issue C.C. by 19.06.2012. (b/o) cbs The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.5820 of 2010 & Civil Revision Petition No.1631 of 2012 12th June, 2012 Note: Issue C.C. by 19.06.2012. (b/o) cbs