THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.3762 of 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 17.06.2008, passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, dismissing I.A.No.307 of 2008 in I.A.No.93 of 2008 in O.S.No.1415 of 2005 filed under Order IX Rule 9 CPC seeking to set aside the order of dismissal passed in I.A.No.93 of 2008, dated 22.02.2008, and to restore the same to its original status. 2. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.1415 of 2005 for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. In the said suit, the petitioners herein filed I.A.No.93 of 2008 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC seeking to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination and that after filing counter by the respondent and hearing both sides, the matter was posted for orders to 18.02.2008, on which date, the trial Court allowed the same on payment of costs of Rs.300/- by the petitioners on or before 23.02.2008 and proceed with the cross- examination of P.W.1 on the same day and directed P.W.1 to appear before the Court on 22.02.2008, without fail. Since the petitioners have not complied with the said condition, the said I.A. was dismissed for non-payment of costs on 22.02.2008. Aggrieved by the same, they filed I.A.No.307 of 2008 seeking to set aside the said order. The trial Court after considering the material on record dismissed the said I.A. on 17.06.2008. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that non- payment of costs of Rs.300/- on 22.02.2008 is neither wilful nor wanton since they have no knowledge about the conditional order passed by the trial Court while allowing I.A.No.93 of 2008. He further contended that if the cross-examination of P.W.1, which is crucial and essential in the matter, has not been done, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss and thus, he prays to set aside the order impugned. 4. In a suit for declaration, adducing evidence through a witness is very much essential for deciding the matter on merits. The testimony of a witness could be decided only by way of cross- examination by the other side. In the instant case, the petition filed by the petitioners to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.300/- on or before 23.02.2008 and posted the matter to 22.02.2008, on which date, the said petition was dismissed for non-payment of costs by the petitioners. Though the time for payment of costs is granted up to 23.02.2008, the order of dismissal for non-payment of costs before that date i.e, 22.02.2008, is not tenable and that the trial Court ought to have posted the matter after 23.02.2008. Therefore, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to cross-examine P.W.1. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order impugned. However, the petitioners are permitted to pay the costs imposed by the trial Court in I.A.No.93 of 2008, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such payment, the trial Court is directed to fix the date for cross-examination of P.W.1 by the petitioners. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:02.07.2010 sj