IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2209 of 2011 Between: Bale Venkata Laxmi ..... PETITIONER AND Chalasani Sitarama Brahmam and 8 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2209 of 2011 O R D E R: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 15.03.2011, vide which, the petition filed in I.A. 270/2011 under Secs.151 and 148 of CPC praying the Court to reopen the defendants’ side further evidence and examine the present petitioner was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari District. Heard both sides. The petitioner, who is Defendant No.4 in O.S.225/2005 filed I.A.270/2011 along with an affidavit, wherein it was stated that as she recently delivered a child through scissorian operation, she could not attend the Court and she was not examined. The petitioner has stated that after scissorian operation, Doctors advised her not to move from the bed and take complete bed rest. On this account, she could not attend the Court to adduce her evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner, in case she is not allowed to lead her evidence, as she has valuable proprietary rights in the suit property. The petitioner has reiterated that she could not depose before the Court below in time due to the fact that she delivered a child through scissorian operation. Arguments raised by the petitioner have been strongly controverted by Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel, appearing for Respondents Nos.1 to 5. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that all the other defendants have examined themselves, and also examined other witnesses, and hence there is no necessity for the petitioner to examine herself. Learned counsel further submits that as per Or.18 Rule-3A of CPC, the petitioner has to examine herself before examination of other witnesses, now, as the other witnesses have already been examined, the petitioner cannot be examined herself. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that in the present case, the petitioner has conceived and ultimately delivered a child through scissorian operation, she had been advised by the Doctor to take complete bed rest, and hence she was unable to examine herself as defence witness. The reasoning given by the petitioner is plausible and I accept the same. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.03.2011 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to examine herself as defence witness. The petitioner shall examine herself before the trial Court on 23.12.2011. In case, for any reason, if the petitioner is unable to appear on the aforesaid date, the trial Court is directed to give only one more date for her appearance to adduce her evidence. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, with the above directions. No order as to costs. ______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J Dated: 25.11.2011 Dsr