THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1137 of 2011 and 5509 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Since these two revision petitions are filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.15 of 2009. C.R.P.No. 1137 of 2011 is filed, aggrieved by the docket order, dated 08.06.2010, passed in the said suit, whereas, C.R.P.No.5509 of 2010 is filed, aggrieved by the order, dated 08.06.2010, passed in I.A.No.175 of 2010 in the suit. In the suit in O.S.No.15 of 2009, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1. Thereafter, an affidavit has been filed by P.W.2, in lieu of his chief-examination, but as P.W.2 did not appear for cross-examination even after six adjournments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.175 of 2010, seeking to issue summons to the said witness. The said I.A. was dismissed by order, dated 08.06.2010, and on the same day, the Court below has passed docket order in the suit, eschewing the evidence of P.W.2, as he failed to appear before the Court for cross-examination. I have heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the order, dated 08.06.2010, passed in I.A.No.175 of 2010 and also the docket order, dated 08.06.2010, in O.S.No.15 of 2009. In these Civil Revision Petitions, it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that as the petitioner is not able to secure the presence of P.W.2 for cross-examination, she filed I.A.No.175 of 2010, requesting the Court below for issuance of summons to P.W.2, but the said application was erroneously rejected by the Court below and the evidence of P.W.2 is eschewed. In support of his argument, he relied on the judgment of this Court in ADDAGATLA NARENDAR v. SOME VIJAYALAKSHMI[1]. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent that as P.W.2 is the witness on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, it is the duty of the petitioner to secure his presence, and being unable to secure the presence of P.W.2, she cannot seek for issuance of summons for production of such witness. In this regard, he has placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in the case of CHUKKA RAMAIAH v. CHEJURU BUJJIAH[2]. It is to be noticed that after the affidavit of P.W.2 in lieu of chief-examination was filed, though sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner, she could not secure the presence of P.W.2 for the purpose of cross-examination. As it is not in dispute that the chief- affidavit of P.W.2 was filed at the instance of the petitioner, the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of CHUKKA RAMAIAH (2 supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent, squarely applies to the facts of the case on hand. Though the learned counsel for petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of ADDAGATLA NARENDAR (1 supra), having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, the said judgment will be of no help to the case of the petitioner. In view of the reasons recorded by the Court below and the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of CHUKKA RAMAIAH (2 supra), I do not find any illegality in the impugned orders, warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and are accordingly dismissed. No costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th SEPTEMBER, 2011. kvni/ajr [1] 2006(3) ALD 94 [2] 2010(5) ALT 95