IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY C.R.P.No.4418 of 2009. Date:06.11.2009. Between:- Dadi Rajaiah and another ..Petitioners/Petitioners/ Defendants And Dadi Narasaiah .. Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the defendants in O.S.No.1003 of 2007 aggrieved by order dated 22.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.663 of 2009 by the learned V Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. The first respondent-plaintiff filed the aforementioned suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners-defendants. On behalf of the respondents, P.Ws.1 to 3 have filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and their evidence was closed on 18.06.2009. The petitioners herein filed I.A.No.663 of 2009 to recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for cross-examination, but the same is rejected by the court below stating that after closure of evidence of the respondents, several adjournments were taken by the petitioners and when the matter was adjourned finally for their evidence, the present I.A. is filed to get the matter adjourned again. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners-defendants and learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. In this case, it is to be noted that after cross-examination of P.W.1, at first instance, the matter was posted for defendants’ evidence only on 18.06.2009 and the impugned order was passed on 22.07.2009. Though the matter was adjourned, in the meanwhile, but the adjournments are within a span of only one month’s time. Therefore, it cannot be said, I.A.No.663 of 2009 was filed by the petitioners only to get the case adjourned. As the defendants’ side evidence is not started, I deem it appropriate, it is evidently a fit case to give opportunity to the petitioners to cross- examine P.Ws.1 to 3, by allowing the present I.A. For the aforesaid reasons, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 22.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.663 of 2009 is set aside. Consequently, the said application stands allowed. It is made clear that the petitioners-defendants shall take steps for cross-examination as expeditiously as possible without further loss of time. No order as to costs. _________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 6th November, 2009 AMD/MRR