THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.663 AND 2421 OF 2010 Dated:06.08.2010 Between: Rapaka Bhaskara Rao .. Petitioner And Bellamkonda Ravikiran and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.663 AND 2421 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: In a suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein being O.S.No.68 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, petitioner is defendant No.14. The suit is for partition of three items of property. In the suit filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2, defendant Nos.1 to 7 and 15 and 16 are close relatives and defendant Nos.8 to 10 and 12 to 14 are subsequent purchasers of the property, who were impleaded on 31.12.2007. During trial, the petitioner herein submitted the affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 18.02.2009. An advocate commissioner was appointed for recording cross examination. On the ground that the petitioner was not available for cross examination on 26.03.2009 and 02.04.2009, the Court below passed order on 02.04.2009 directing to eschew the evidence of the petitioner. He, therefore, filed two applications. I.A.No.1504 of 2009 was filed to receive three documents, which are registered sale deeds. I.A.No.1505 of 2009 to set aside the order eschewing the chief examination. By a reasoned order passed in I.A.No.1505 of 2009 dated 30.11.2009, the Court below rejected the prayer to set aside the order dated 02.04.2009 and consequently I.A.No.1504 of 2009 was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the first order, Civil Revision Petition No.663 of 2010 is filed and aggrieved by the other order, Civil Revision Petition No.2421 of 2010 is filed. In the affidavit accompanying the application filed before the Court below, the petitioner alleged that he could not make himself available for cross examination as he was away in America. Same plea is urged before this Court. The original passport of the petitioner is produced which would support the contention that he left India on 25.03.2009 and returned on 09.07.2009. Secondly, the question of eschewing evidence would not arise because the petitioner only filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. When the chief examination is recorded and witness is not subjected to cross examination, generally such chief examination is of no use in the adjudication. Now that the petitioner is offering for cross examination, one more opportunity can be granted to him to the limited extent of proving the sale deeds under which he allegedly purchased 388.66 sq. yds., out of item No.1 of suit schedule property from defendant No.13 and the other two related link documents. This does not, however, mean that suit is being reopened for all purposes. It shall be reopened only for the purpose of enabling defendant No.14 (petitioner herein) subjecting himself for cross examination. In the result, these two Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the lower Court may now appoint an advocate commissioner, if necessary, for the purpose of cross examination of the petitioner as DW.2. As the suit is of the year 2003, after completing the cross examination of DW.2, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________ V.V.S. RAO, J 06.08.2010 KH