IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.1047 of 2010 Between: K. Jagan Reddy .. Petitioner AND Smt. K. Bharathamma and others .. Respondents Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 18-02-2010 in I.A. No.522 of 2009 in O.S. No.41 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri P. Laxma Reddy, Advocate for 1 to 7 respondents, the Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the contesting respondents. The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989- cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy in I.A. No.522 of 2009 in O.S. No.41 of 2005 allowing the request for recall of D.W.1 for cross-examination by defendants 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 22. The main ground of challenge in the revision is that no valid reason was assigned for recalling D.W.1 for cross-examination by co-defendants who did not claim any conflict of interest and who sold away their interest in the properties to D.W.1 and the 3rd defendant under registered sale deeds in 1997 and 1999. The revision petitioner further contended that it is only in collusion with the plaintiffs that the petitioners desire to cross-examine D.W.1 to help the plaintiffs. Before the trial Court, the request of defendants 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 22 was on the ground of some relevant questions not being put to D.W.1 on their behalf due to the absence of any cross-examination earlier. The request was resisted on the ground that these defendants did not file any written statement and did not cross-examine any witnesses for the plaintiffs or D.W.1 earlier and the ex parte defendants cannot, therefore, seek recall of D.W.1 for any cross-examination. The trial Court opined in the impugned order that even persons, who remained ex parte in the proceedings or who did not file any written statements, have a right to cross-examine the witnesses, if they so desire, duly participating in the trial and the trial Court considered in exercise of its judicial discretion that an opportunity should be given to these defendants to cross-examine D.W.1. The petition was, hence, allowed on payment of costs of Rs.200/-. The petitioners before the trial Court filed a counter-affidavit herein and also copies of the docket order of the trial Court, dated 09-04-2008 and the written statement filed by them in the suit. The counter affidavit and the documents disclose that these defendants 4, 5, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 22, who remained ex parte earlier, got the ex parte order against them set aside in I.A. No.1694 of 2008 and also filed a written statement disputing the claims of the 1st defendant/D.W.1 and expressing no objection for a decree of the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, while giving them also a share of 1/27th each in the disputed property. Thus, it is evident that these defendants took an adverse stand against the contentions of the 1st defendant in the suit and were contesting the suit by the time they filed the present petition and did not cross- examine D.W.1 earlier on any of the aspects they raised in their written statement. Under such circumstances, the exercise of judicial discretion by the trial Court to recall D.W.1 for cross- examination by these defendants cannot be considered to be unreasonable or baseless and in a restricted exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court, the order cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 04-06-2010 Svv