THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR Civil Revision Petition No. 1697 of 2010 Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 11.02.2010 passed in I.A. No.1418 of 2007 in O.S. No.76 of 2005 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, forfeiting the right of the petitioner herein to cross-examine PW.1. The brief facts of the case are as follows. Respondents 1 to 3 herein filed the suit for perpetual injunction. The petitioner herein is the second defendant in the said suit and respondents 4 to 6 herein are the other defendants. In the said suit, chief affidavit of PW.1 was filed on 15.12.2009 and as the defendants were not ready, the right of defendant No.2 to cross-examine PW.1 was forfeited on 28.01.2010. Then the second defendant filed I.A Nos.52 and 53 of 2010 and the said petitions were allowed by a common order dated 09.02.2010. The lower Court directed the second defendant to cross-examine PW.1 on 10.02.2010 before the Advocate-Commissioner and further observed that failing which no other opportunity would be given and the case would be proceeded and judgment would be pronounced on 11.02.2010. Accordingly, advocate-commissioner was appointed. It appears that the Advocate-Commissioner has given notice to the counsel for the second defendant at 4.15 PM. Then the counsel for the second defendant sought time and it appears that the counsel for the plaintiff had also no objection for giving time and the Advocate- commissioner filed a memo seeking extension of time for execution of the warrant. Then the Court passed the impugned orders stating that a conditional order was passed directing the second defendant to cross- examine PW.1 on 10.02.2010 itself and in spite of passing a conditional order the counsel for the second defendant sought time and therefore the right of the second defendant to cross-examine PW.1 stands forfeited. The petitioners were also directed to adduce further evidence, failing which their right also stands forfeited to lead evidence. The impugned order is under challenge in this CRP. Admittedly, the suit was dismissed on 19.11.2007. A petition was filed seeking restoration of the suit. The lower Court passed conditional orders restoring the suit and when the plaintiffs have complied with those orders for all practical purposes this IA stands allowed and the suit ought to have been restored and after restoration of the suit the other proceedings ought to have been continued in the suit but not in the IA. Anyhow it appears that the petitioner herein failed to cross-examine PW.1. It appears that the advocate commissioner was appointed to record the cross-examination of PW.1, but the petitioner failed to utilize that opportunity. It appears that in the above circumstances she filed IA Nos.52 and 53 of 2010 and they were allowed directing the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1 on 10.02.2010 itself and this order was passed on 09.02.2010. As seen from the record it is clear that on 09.02.2010 itself the Court has directed the petitioner/second defendant to cross-examine PW.1 on 10.02.2010. Merely because the Advocate-Commissioner has given notice at about 4.15 PM that does not give any right to the second defendant to seek adjournment and not to cross-examine PW.1. Anyhow the matters have to be disposed of on merits rather than on technicalities. In the circumstances and in the interest of justice, I consider it just and reasonable to give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1 on condition of petitioner paying Rs.1,000/- to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Warangal on or before 30th June, 2011. On payment of such costs, the petitioner shall be given an opportunity to cross-examine PW.1 on the date fixed by the lower Court before the Advocate Commissioner appointed by the lower Court. The lower Court is directed to complete the entire process by the end of July 2011. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 17.06.2011 Nsr