HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P. No. 3918 of 2011 DATED: 16.09.2011 Between: Shaik Allah Baksh and six others .. Petitioners/ Plaintiffs And A.P. State Wakf Board .. Respondent/ Defendant O R D E R:- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 08.08.2011 passed in I.A. No. 170 of 2010 in O.S. No. 79 of 2005 by the Andhra Pradesh State Wakf Tribunal, Hyderabad whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Section 151 C.P.C. to reopen the plaintiffs’ side evidence, is dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the order under revision. The main grounds on which the application under Section 151 CPC was filed, are that when PW2 was being cross-examined, she was not keeping good health, as such, she could not understand and give evidence properly, and the other ground is that she is an important witness to the suit, therefore, it is prayed to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence. A careful perusal of the order under revision reveals that no endorsement whatsoever or any representation to the effect that PW2 was ill at the time of her cross-examination or that she was not in a position to give evidence, was made before the Wakf Tribunal, and the cross-examination clearly discloses that the questions put to PW2 by the counsel for the defence were properly and specifically answered. It appears that the speculation under which the present application is filed to reopen the evidence of PW2, is that the plaintiffs felt some inconvenience at the way she answered the questions during cross- examination. It is to be noted that the principle underlying the cross- examination is that it is a prudent test to ascertain the truth from the witness and in this context, a valuable right is given to the opposite party to do so. The other ground which is sought by the plaintiffs to reopen the evidence of PW2, is that PW2 is an essential witness to the suit, therefore, she is felt necessary to adduce fresh evidence. This proposition, in the opinion of the Court, is nothing but an effort of the plaintiffs to reopen the evidence of PW2 under the alleged guise of illness in order to cover up the earlier evidence made by PW2 in support of their defence. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the provisions contemplated under Sections 137 and 138 of Indian Evidence Act, according to which, re-examination of the witnesses arises only if it is felt that the witness is required to give certain clarification over the points elicited in the cross-examination, that too, it has to be done with the permission of the Court. Apparently, no permission from the Wakf Tribunal at the time of cross-examination was sought that re-examination is necessary. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that no exception can be taken to the view expressed by the Wakf Tribunal in the impugned order. Hence, I find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 16.09.2011 bcj