THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos. 824 and 956 of 2010 Dt.2-9-2011 CRP No.824/2010: T. Vijaya W/o Jaya Chandra, represented by GPA holder, Nuvval Kosi Subbaiah ..Petitioner V. Mirza Hyder Ali ..Respondent The court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP Nos. 824 and 956 of 2010 Common Order Since these revision petitions arise one and the same suit, OS No.2084/2007, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order. The revision petitioner in both the revision petitions is the defendant in OS No.2084/2007 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. She filed the revision petitions under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India, to revise the orders dt. 11-2-2010 passed in IA No.855/2009 and 854/2009 respectively. It is unfortunate, in CRP No.824/2010 notice before admission was ordered on 26-2-2010 while staying the proceedings in OS No.2084/2007 on the file of Rent Controller-cum-IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. When CRP No.956/2010 was listed on 5-3-2010, at request the same was adjourned to 8-3-2010. CRP No.824/2010 has not seen the light of the day till 26-8-2011. On 26-8-2011, on representation that another connected CRP is pending disposal, this court directed the Registry post the CRP No.956/2010 along with CRP No.824/2010. Thus, they have been listed nearly after 1 ½ years. In the process, the Rent Controller has been prevented from proceeding with the trial of the suit, filed for eviction. The petitioner, who is defendant in OS No.2084/2007 filed for eviction, filed IA No.855/2009 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the evidence of the defendant which was closed on 7-9-2009 and IA No.854/2009 filed under Rule 32 of the Civil Rules of Practice seeking a direction permitting the petitioner to represent the defendant in the suit as GPA holder. The Rent Controller dismissed IA No.854/2009 rightly holding that the GPA holder of the defendant cannot be permitted to give evidence on her behalf and he can depose in respect of the facts which are within his knowledge on behalf of the defendant after execution of the GPA. While dismissing the petition, the Rent Controller observed that the defendant is at liberty to get appointed an advocate commissioner to record the evidence of the defendant, if she really fell sick. In view of dismissal of IA No.854/2009, the Rent Controller also dismissed IA No.855/2009 holding that there is no need to reopen the suit. Aggrieved by the same, CRP No.956/2010 and 824/2010 have been filed respectively. Once the Rent Controller observed that the petitioner/defendant can also be examined through advocate commissioner, if she really fell sick, the Rent Controller ought not to have dismissed IA No.855/2009 filed for reopening of the suit for the purpose of adducing evidence on behalf of the defendant. Therefore, the Rent Controller erred in dismissing IA No.855/2009. Unless the impugned order passed not to reopen the suit is set-aside, the petitioner/defendant cannot be examined by appointing the advocate commissioner. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller in IA lNo.855/2009 dt. 11-2-2010 is set-aside subject to the petitioner/defendant paying a sum of Rs.1000/- (Rs. One thousand only) to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad within two weeks form the date of receipt of a copy of the orders and filing an affidavit in lieu of chief examination, by serving a copy of the same on the respondent/plaintiff, along with the receipt evidencing payment of Rs.1000/- to the Authority. On filing such affidavit and receipt, the Rent Controller shall fix a date for cross- examination of the petitioner/defendant and proceed with the matter. CRP No.824/2010 is accordingly allowed and whereas CRP No.956/2010 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. Dt.2-9-2011 kmr