HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY C.R.P.Nos.5392 and 5528 of 2010 Date: June 29, 2011 Between: Macherla Ramulu @ Ramanna Goud, S/o.Rajaiah, aged 41 years, Occ:Toddy Tapper, R/o.Narayanagiri village, Dharmasagar Mandal, Warangal District … Petitioner And Jagityala Mohan Babu, S/o.Jagannadham, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Academician, R/o.H.No.5- 6-9, Lashkar Bazar, Hanamkonda, Warangal … Respondent Common Order: As these revision petitions arise out of two interlocutory applications in the very same suit in O.S.No.181 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. Challenge in these revision petitions is to the orders dated 22.06.2010 passed in I.A.Nos.1536 and 1535 of 2009 in the aforesaid suit which is filed by the respondent herein for recovery of money against the petitioner. In the said suit, trial has commenced, the respondent was examined as P.W.1 and the matter was coming up for cross-examination. When P.W.1 was not cross-examined and his evidence was closed, earlier, the petitioner filed an application in I.A.No.162 of 2009 to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination, which was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.100/-. When the evidence of P.W.1 was recalled for cross-examination, P.W.1 was not cross-examined; as such, evidence was closed. Thereafter, the present applications, i.e. I.A.Nos.1536 and 1535 of 2009 are filed by the petitioner. I.A.No.1536 of 2009 is filed to reopen the suit for further cross-examination of P.W.1 and I.A.No.1535 of 2009 to recall P.W.1. The Court below, by the orders impugned, rejected the claim of the petitioner by recording a finding that though earlier the application of the petitioner, to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination, in I.A.No.162 of 2009 is allowed, on payment of costs; in spite of such opportunity, P.W.1 was not cross-examined. On the aforesaid ground, the Court below dismissed I.A.Nos.1536 and 1535 of 2009, by the orders impugned. Heard Sri A.Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the respondent. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of giving valid reasons in the affidavit filed in support of the I.As., the Court below has rejected the said I.As. It is further contended that, as the suit is for recovery of money, if no opportunity is given to the petitioner, he will be put to irreparable loss. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that pursuant to earlier application filed by the petitioner, evidence of P.W.1 was already recalled; in spite of the same, P.W.1 was not cross-examined; therefore there are no merits, to recall P.W.1 by reopening evidence at this stage. I have perused the affidavits filed in support of I.A.Nos.1536 and 1535 of 2009. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1535 of 2009, it is the specific pleading of the petitioner that, on the date of cross-examination of P.W.1, his counsel had to attend the Court at Parkal and due to his counsel going to Parkal, P.W.1 could not be cross-examined. Having regard to the reasons stated in the affidavits filed in support of the said I.As., this Court is of the view that it is a fit case to give an opportunity to the petitioner for cross-examination of P.W.1 upon payment of costs. At this stage, it is brought to the notice of this Court that after filing of these revision petitions, no further evidence is also recorded. In that view of the matter, the orders dated 22-06- 2010 passed in I.A.Nos.1536 and 1535 of 2009 are set- aside. The said applications stand allowed on payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-, to the counsel appearing for the respondent within two weeks from today. As the suit is of the year 2007, I deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to dispose of the suit within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Civil revision petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. __________________ (R.SUBHASH REDDY, J) June 29, 2011 MRR