THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MEENA KUMARI C.R.P.No. 1420 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders of the learned IV Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad in I.A.No.14 of 2010 in R.C.No. 313 of 2008, dated 22.2.2010. Brief facts of the revision are that: Respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner in the main R.C.No. 313 of 2008 filed before the learned trial Court against the petitioner herein, who is the respondent No.1 before the learned trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties as arrayed before the lower Court are referred to hereinafter in this order. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court has dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the defeated 1st respondent has preferred the present civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As can be seen from the order under revision that the 1st respondent has filed I.A.No. 14 of 2010 in R.C.No. 313 of 2008 against the petitioner under order 18 Rule 18 Read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code seeking to reopen the case for the purpose of cross examination of P.W.1. A perusal of the order under revision reveals thus: “Docket dated 14.12.09 shows that RespondentNo.1 and his counsel was present when the P.W.1 is examined in chief and marked documents. Then the counsel for the petitioner/respondent represented that the respondent/petitioner has taken six months time. Now insisting for cross examination of P.W.1 is not correct. But, the Officer in-charge of this Court rejected the contention of the counsel for the respondent as P.W.1 is old aged person and he has come from Bombay. Therefore, refused to adjourn the matter. The counsel for the respondent represented that the wish to cross examine pw1 before the regular court, that contention was also refused. Therefore, in view of the said circumstances, the Presiding Officer rightly treated the cross examination of P.W.1 as nil. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. Hence, the petition is dismissed.” The order of the court below clearly reveals that in spite of the opportunity given by the Court, the counsel for the petitioner/respondent refused to cross examine the P.W.1 who is a old aged and came from Bombay. Under these circumstances, I do not find any merits in the revision and accordingly the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ T. MEENA KUMARI, J 8.4.2010 CHV