IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1003 and 1017 of 2010 Between: P.Venkata Rama Reddy … Petitioner And K.Chanti Reddy and five others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1003 and 1017 of 2010 COMMON ORDER:- The petitioner/5th defendant in the suit filed these two revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for setting aside the common order of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, dated 29.12.2009 passed in I.A.Nos.1156 and 1157 of 2009 in O.S.No.61 of 2006. The plaintiff/1st respondent herein, instituted the above suit on the basis of promissory note said to have been executed by the 1st defendant firm, in which the petitioner who is arrayed as 5th defendant in the suit, has not filed any written statement, but simply adopted the written statement filed by the 4th defendant and thus there is no separate defence on his side. As the plaintiff who was examined as P.W.1 has not tendered himself for cross-examination, his evidence was eschewed and on his filing application, he was permitted to examine further witnesses and thus P.Ws.2 and 3 filed affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief and the matter was posted for their cross-examination on 23.11.2009. Even on the said date, when both the witnesses were available, they were not cross-examined by the counsel for the petitioner and as their cross-examination was recorded as ‘nil’, the present impugned I.As were filed by the petitioner/5th defendant i.e., I.A.No.1156 of 2009 to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for cross-examination by the petitioner and I.A.No.1157 of 2009 to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence by recalling P.Ws.1 and 2 for cross-examination, stating that he got a good defence as the suit promissory note was forged and fabricated document and though P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined on 22.11.2009, he could not cross-examine them as he could not meet his advocate and give necessary instructions because of death of his nearest relative which happened very recently to the said date. The said applications were contested by the 1st respondent/ plaintiff contending that the petitioner has not filed any written statement in defence of his stand, but simply adopted the written statement filed by the 4th defendant. Prior to filing of the present I.As., 4th defendant filed I.A.Nos.1129 and 1130 of 2009 for recalling P.Ws.1 and 2 and for reopening the evidence on 30.11.2009 and those two applications were dismissed on 04.12.2009, which was signed by the very same advocate who is appearing for the petitioner. On dismissal of the said I.As., the present I.As., were filed inventing a fresh and new cause to recall and reopen the matter. Since the dismissal order for recalling P.Ws.1 and 2 has become final on dismissal of I.A.Nos.1129 and 1130 of 2009 filed by the contesting 4th defendant, the present applications appear to have been filed without verifying whether the evidence of P.W.1 was eschewed or not. Further, the advocate who filed the earlier I.As., on behalf of the 4th defendant has not taken any steps to get the said dismissal order set aside and simply filed the present applications only to procrastinate the matter. In view of the same, the common order passed by the trial court in dismissing the impugned I.As., does not suffer from any infirmity, warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 12th March 2010 lmv