THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 561 of 2010 Dated: 21.04.2010 Between: Smt. M.Kavitha … Petitioner And Medisetti Reddappa and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 561 of 2010 O R D E R : The revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.709 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ananthapur. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in suit schedule property. The plaintiff got herself examined as P.W.1. However as certain documents could not be marked in evidence due to oversight, she filed I.A. No.1400 of 2009 to recall P.W.1 for marking the said documents. The said application was allowed by order dated 09.12.2009 with a direction to P.W.1 to adduce her evidence on 15.12.2009 failing which the petition should stand dismissed. However, as the advocates were abstaining from the Court work, from 15.12.2009 the matter was adjourned to 28.12.2009. Again the matter was adjourned to 21.01.2010 as 28.12.2009 happened to be a holiday. On 21.01.2010, an application was filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking adjournment for three days to enable P.W.1 to adduce her evidence. The said application was supported by an affidavit sworn to by the counsel for the plaintiff himself explaining the reasons. It is also relevant to note that the counsel for the defendants reported no objection to grant the time as sought by the plaintiff. However, the Court below by order dated 21.01.2010 rejected the said application without assigning any reasons. By a separate order passed on the same day, I.A.No.1400 of 2009 was also dismissed by the Court below observing that the order dated 09.12.2009 was not complied with. Hence the present revision petition by the plaintiff. Despite notice, the respondents did not choose to appear. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I am of the opinion that the Court below was not justified in rejecting the application for adjournment without assigning any reasons in spite of the fact that the counsel for the defendants had reported no objection. There is absolutely no justifiable reason to reject the said application even without numbering. The application on behalf of the plaintiff to adjourn the matter by three days to adduce the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be held to be frivolous and the Court below committed an error in rejecting the same at the threshold without assigning any reasons. In the circumstances, the order dated 21.01.2010 in I..A.No.1400 of 2009 as well as the unnumbered application for adjournment are hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to number the application for adjournment filed on behalf of the plaintiff and pass appropriate orders after hearing both the parties in the light of the observations made above. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 21.04.2010 KLP