THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.102 of 2010 Date: 12.03.2010 Between: Adusumilli Bhanu Venkata Krishna Rao … Petitioner and P. Murali Mohan … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.102 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant No.3 as well as learned counsel for the respondent-plaintiff. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decretal order, dated 8.12.2009, in I.A.No.1276 of 2009 in O.S.No.1056 of 2005, passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner under Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 C.P.C., seeking to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 for cross-examination and to adduce evidence. 3. At the outset, from a perusal of the impugned order dated 8.12.2009, it is to be noticed that the present application I.A.No.1276 of 2009 was filed at the stage of arguments. In fact, the evidence of P.W.1 was closed as long back as on 3.2.2009. The petitioner filed I.A.Nos.748 and 767 of 2009 to reopen and recall for the purpose of cross-examination of P.W.1 and the said petitions were allowed with a condition to examine P.W.1 at once on the day fixed by the Court and the suit was posted to 11.8.2009. On that day, P.W.1 was absent. Therefore, the conditional order was allowed in favour of the petitioner. As against the said order, the respondent filed I.A.Nos.941 and 943 of 2009 to set aside the orders passed on 13.8.2009 and the said petitions were allowed by setting aside the orders dated 13.8.2009. Thereafter the matter was posted for cross-examination of P.W.1 by the petitioner. In that way, the petitioner was successful in his attempt in obtaining an order of recalling and reopening the matter in order to examine P.W.1. But, what is to be seen is that the petitioner was called absent on the next date of hearing i.e., on 21.10.2009 and there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Therefore, the Court below had arrived at the conclusion that despite several opportunities, as mentioned above, have been given and sufficient indulgence had been shown, the same were not properly availed of by the petitioner, and accordingly, through the impugned order, dated 8.12.2009, dismissed the said application. Hence the present civil revision petition. 4. Already pointed out, the present interlocutory application was filed at the stage of arguments. In fact, such applications ought not to have been entertained at that stage, unless there are exceptional reasons. However, the Court below was indulgent to its maximum and despite which the petitioner could not avail of the said indulgence. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner shows that one way or the other, to drag on the proceedings, which cannot be appreciated in any manner. 5. For the foregoing, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the impugned order passed by the Court below and hence the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. The interim stay granted by this Court on 22.1.2010 shall stand vacated. No order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 12.03.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.102 of 2010 12.03.2010 (Msr)