THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4888 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by defendant No.3 in O.S.No.10 of 2000 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsampet, aggrieved by order, dated 08.09.2010 passed in I.A.No.246 of 2010. O.S.No.10 of 2000 is filed by the first respondent for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. In the aforesaid suit, when evidence was being recorded, in lieu of oral evidence of P.W.2, an affidavit was filed on 17.03.2010. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 26.03.2010, 07.04.2010 and 16.04.2010. It is stated that on 26.03.2010 and 07.04.2010, P.W.2 was cross-examined on behalf of defendant No.1, and on 16.04.2010, he was cross-examined partly on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.3. Thereafter, I.A.No.246 of 2010 has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC to recall P.W.2 for cross-examination. The said I.A. was rejected by the impugned order. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 16.04.2010, the petitioner could not give proper instructions to her advocate for cross-examination of P.W.2 as she was not keeping good health. It is stated that after perusing the certified copy of the cross-examination of P.W.2, as she found that some crucial aspects have been missed due to her absence, she filed I.A.No.246 of 2010. The Court below rejected the said application on the ground that the petitioner has not specifically mentioned on what material points she intends to cross-examine P.W.2. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that as the suit is for partition, if substantive right of cross-examination of P.W.2 by the petitioner is deprived, the petitioner, being the contesting defendant, will be put to great prejudice. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the Advocate was not correctly briefed is no ground to recall P.W.2. In this regard, the learned counsel has also relied on the judgments rendered by this Court in ADDALA LAKSHMI AND OTHERS v. G.SUBHADRAMMA AND ANOTHER[1]; BOTSA APPALA NARASAYYA v. SMT. RAGHUNANDA LAKSHMI AND OTHERS[2]; NAGUMOTHU SRIHARINATH v. NAGUMOTHU VANI[3]. I have perused the affidavit filed in support of I.A., in which, it is specifically pleaded that P.W.2 was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner/defendant No.3 only on 28.04.2010, on which date, she was absent due to ill-health and when she noticed that certain aspects were missed after obtaining certified copy of the cross-examination of P.W.2, she filed I.A.No.246 of 2010. Merely because the petitioner has not specifically mentioned on what material points she intends to cross-examine P.W.2, the same cannot be a ground to reject I.A.No.246 of 2010. Though not briefing the Advocate is no ground to recall a witness, at the same time, it can be seen clearly from the affidavit filed by the petitioner that as she was not well, she could not attend the Court to brief her Advocate. As the suit is for partition and separate possession, if the petitioner is not allowed to cross-examine P.W.2, certainly, it will cause prejudice to the case of the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.2 subject to payment of costs by the petitioner. Accordingly, the order under challenge is set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) by the petitioner and I.A.No.246 of 2010 stands allowed. The costs shall be paid to the learned counsel, who is on record, appearing for P.W.2, within a period of two (2) weeks from today. The Court below is directed to fix a date for cross-examination of P.W.2 and on that date, without taking any adjournment, the cross-examination shall be done on behalf of the petitioner. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed with the directions referred to above. _______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 23rd JUNE, 2011. kvni [1] 2003(6) ALD (NOC) 104 [2] AIR 2004 ANDHRA PRADESH 82 [3] 1997(5) ALD 237