HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 2361 OF 2010 Friday, the Eighteenth day of June, Two Thousand and Ten Between B.Ramaiah Panthulu Petitioner AND N.Satyanarayana Murthy Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 2361 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner in IA No. 1204 of 2009 who is defendant in OS No. 7266 of 2005 assailing the order dated 15.04.2010 passed by the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall the plaintiff - respondent herein for further cross examination. The respondent herein filed the above suit for perpetual injunction. It is case of the petitioner herein that since the plaintiff was not cross-examined thoroughly, it is just and essential to cross-examine him further; while it is the case of the respondent herein that though the case underwent several adjournments, he was not cross examined and ultimately, on 4.6.2009, the right to further cross examine him was forfeited. Even after the suit was posted for defence evidence, the petitioner sought several adjournments, which is nothing but a device to protract the litigation. The Court below dismissed the said application observing that no convincing reason is forthcoming except a bald statement that since he was out of station, he could not instruct his counsel to cross –examine PW-1 and the present petition is filed after hearing the arguments and judgment is reserved. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. As can be seen from the order impugned, the petitioner was out of station and could not instruct his previous counsel to cross-examine PW-1 thoroughly. It is evident that the suit has undergone many adjournments for the purpose of cross examination of PW-1 and the present petition is filed after conclusion of trial, hearing the arguments of the counsel and judgment is reserved. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the court below having considered the respective contentions has rightly dismissed the application. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the observations made by the court below and I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari June 18, 2010 MAS