IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.953 & 954 of 2010 CRP.No.953/2010: Between: Smt.M.Mohanamma ..... PETITIONER AND Smt.B.Dhanamma and 11 others .....RESPONDENTS CRP.No.954/2010: Between: Smt.M.Mohanamma ..... PETITIONER AND Smt.B.Dhanamma and 11 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.953 & 954 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner in both these civil revision petitions is the 1st defendant in the suit in O.S.393/2003 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati filed by Respondent Nos.1 to 9 herein for specific performance of agreement of sale. The petitioner/1st defendant filed I.A.Nos.222 and 223/2010 in the said suit seeking to recall PWs 1 to 5 and to reopen the evidence for the purpose of cross examination of PWs 1 to 5. Both the applications have been dismissed by the Court below, against which the present civil revision petitions are filed under Artile- 227 of the Constitution of India. It is the case of the petitioner/1st defendant that the said suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale and for permanent injunction, and after adducing the evidence on behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant could not file the chief affidavit as she was suffering from chronic breast cancer and was under treatment for the past two years at Bangalore, and she could not contract her counsel and gave instructions to file her chief affidavit. She came to know about the fate of the suit about two days back alone on receiving the letter from her counsel. A counter has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs denying all the allegations made in the affidavit including the sickness of the petitioner/1st defendant. It is stated that the applications are filed at the instance of the 10th respondent therein, and respondent Nos.11 and 12 therein are no other than the sons of 1st respondent therein and at any rate the suit is of the year 2003 and already 7 years have been lapsed and cross examination of PWs 1 and 2 is over and the matter is posted for further evidence of 2nd defendant. The Court bellow considered both the applications and held that defendant Nos.2 to 4 were added in 2003 itself and the 1st defendant did not participate in the trial in spite of service of chief affidavits of PWs 1 and 2. The counsel for 1st defendant on 01.08.2009 reported no cross examination. The Court below further observed that after adding of defendants 2 to 4, the 1st defendant had not shown any interest in contesting the matter and more over when the matter came up for cross examination of PW 2, there was no representation on behalf of 1st defendant. The 1st defendant did not file any document to show that she was suffering from breast cancer and underwent treatment at Bangalore. I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly dismissed the said applications. I do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise warranting interference with the said order. These Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 05.03.2010 Dsr