IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.251 of 2011 Between: Pullela Lakshminarayana & 5 others .. Petitioners AND Maddimsetti Mukteswararao & 2 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.251 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the docket order, dated 21.01.2011, in O.S.No.158 of 2005, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, wherein the request made by defendants 2, 4 to 6 and 8/petitioners herein to permit their counsel to verify the material part of the Court record for the purpose of cross-examination of P.W.1, was rejected. 2. Heard both sides. 3. It is not disputed that P.W.1 was examined in chief. The matter underwent some adjournments at the stage of cross- examination on 20.01.2011. The petitioners’ counsel filed a memo under Rule 117 of Civil Rules of Practice taking permission to verify the material part of the Court record to proceed with the cross-examination. By the impugned docket order, the trial Court rejected the memo observing that there are no grounds or merits to consider the same. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioners are always trying to drag the matter by delaying the cross-examination of P.W.1 on some pretext or the other. But the impugned order does not disclose that the memo was rejected on the ground of delay or latches on the part of the petitioners/defendants. In the interest of fair trial, it is only just and proper that an opportunity be given to the counsel for the petitioners/defendants to peruse the documents filed in the Court to proceed with the cross-examination of P.W.1. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the defendants have no intention to delay or protract the proceedings and that they are ready to have an early disposal of the suit. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the leaned counsel for the petitioners/defendants is permitted to peruse the material part of the Court record for the purpose of cross-examining P.W.1 subject to the condition that the petitioners/defendants shall cross-examine P.W.1 on the same day as undertaken by the learned counsel for the petitioners, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2005, the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same at an early date preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and the petitioners/defendants shall co-operate for the expeditious disposal of the suit. _____________________ G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 14th July, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.251 of 2011 Date: 14th July, 2011 KL