THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4390 of 2009 Date: 06-11-2009 Between Manikonda Vijaya Kumar … Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/ Plaintiff And 1. Manikonda Syamalamba and 6 others … Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4390 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard Sri K.Maheswara Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 02-9-2009, passed by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.690 of 2009 in O.S.No.75 of 2004, filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall D.Ws.1 to 3 for the purpose of cross- examination. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are defendants in the suit before the Court below. 4. As could be seen from the impugned order, it appears that examination of witnesses on both sides had been completed long back and the matter has been posted for arguments. In fact, after the examination of witnesses on both sides, at the instance of the petitioner-plaintiff, defendant No.4 alone was added as a party to the suit and even that witness also was examined. Virtually, all the witnesses on either side have been examined and were cross-examined as well. 5. At that stage, on the ground that on crucial aspects D.Ws.1 to 3 were not cross-examined, the plaintiff filed the present application. 6. The Court below relying on a judgment of this Court reported in 2009 (4) ALD 511, wherein it was held that to allow an interlocutory application filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of CPC to recall the witness for cross-examination, convincing reasons have to be stated and in the event of any such failure, such an application has to be dismissed. The Court below has found that there are no convincing reasons to entertain the present interlocutory application and this Court cannot go into the merits any further and record a finding regarding the validity or otherwise of the order passed by the Court below, particularly when the suit is of the year 2004 and is at the stage of arguments. 7. For the aforementioned, I do not find any merit in the revision. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 06th November, 2009. Ak