HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2675 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order made in I.A.No.606 of 2010 in O.S.No.3 of 2004 dated 07/06/2010 whereunder the application filed by the petitioners herein under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC to recall P.W.1 and permit him to further cross-examine the witness was dismissed. The petitioners are the defendants. Respondents are the plaintiffs. It appears the respondents laid suit in O.S.No.3 of 2004 for declaration of a suit schedule land as a grazing land. During the pendency of the suit and after examination and cross-examination of P.W.1, the present I.A.No.606 of 2010 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC was filed to recall P.W.1 and permit the petitioners to further cross-examine P.W.1. The said application was dismissed by holding: “It is averred in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of the plaint schedule property as grazing lands and for other reliefs. The petitioners who are the defendants are contesting the suit by filing written statement. The defence of the petitioners is that the suit is barred by the judgments in the earlier suits. The suit was posted to 26/03/2010 for continuation of cross-examination of P.W.1 who was earlier cross-examined in part. The case is based on earlier suits and as the petitioners were not having copies of the earlier suits, a request was made for time for further cross-examination. But this Court refused to grant time and treated the cross-examination closed and proceeded with further evidence. The petitioners secured the relevant documents and now they are ready to cross-examine P.W.1 if he is not recalled for further cross- examination, the petitioners will be put to loss. There was no negligence on their part. So, this petition. In spite of granting time, the respondents have not filed any counter. Now the point for consideration is:- “Whether the petitioners are entitled to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination?” P O I N T:- The suit was filed in 2004. As seen from the minutes of docket of the suit, the chief affidavit of P.W.1 was filed on 11/03/2008. Somehow or other, the suit was being adjourned from time to time as both parties were not getting ready. Thereafter, a petition was filed to implead D-6. That petition was allowed. But, D-6 remained ex parte. The chief-affidavit was represented on 2—11-2009. The suit was adjourned to 9-11-2009 for marking documents and for cross-examination. From 16-11-2009 to 26-3-2010, the minutes of the docket are as follows:- “16-11-2009 D.N.R. Call on 25-11-2009. 25-11-2009: D.N.R. on payment of costs of Rs.100/- call on 9-12-2009. 9-12-2009: Costs of Rs.100/- paid. D.N.R. On further payment of costs of Rs.250/-, call on 16-12- 2009. 16-12-2009: Costs of Rs.250/- not paid. No representation for both parties. Call on 18-12-2009. 18-12-2009: Costs of Rs.250/- not paid. No representation for both parties. Call on 21-12-2009. 21-12-2009: Costs of Rs.250/- not paid. No representation for both parties. Advocates are boycotting the Courts. Call on 30-12-2009. 30-12-2009: Costs of Rs.250/- already paid and acknowledgement filed. D.N.R. On further payment of costs of Rs.500/- call on 25-1-2010. 25-1-2010: Costs of Rs.500/- paid. For want of time, call on 11-2-2010. 11-2-2010: P.W.1 examined in chief. Ex.A-1 marked. D.N.R. On payment of costs of Rs.100/- call on 24-2-2010. 24-2-2010: Costs of Rs.100/- paid. D.N.R. On further payment of costs of Rs.150/-, call on 11-3- 2010. 11-3-2010: Costs of Rs.150/- paid. P.W.1 partly cross-examined. At request of defendants counsel, for continuation call on 22-3-2010. 22-3-2010: At request of defendants counsel, call on 26-3-2010. No further adjournment will be granted on that day. 26-3-2010: P.W.1 further cross-examination closed. For further evidence of plaintiff, call on 8-4- 2010.” On 11-3-2010, P.W.1 was partly cross-examined and then the counsel requested time. So, the suit was adjourned on 22-3-2010. Again the defendants’ counsel requested time and the time was given by adjourning the suit to 26-3-2010 informing that no further adjournment will be granted. In spite of the direction of the Court, the counsel did not turn up to cross-examine P.W.1 on 263-2010. Therefore, this Court has closed the further cross-examination and posted the suit for further evidence. Thereafter, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are examined for the plaintiffs. Now the suit is coming up for defendants’ evidence. When the minutes of the docket are perused, the petitioners were given several opportunities to proceed with the cross-examination. In spite of posting the suit to the date required by the petitioners’ counsel and informing that no further adjournment will be granted, even then the petitioners did not thought of proceeding with the cross-examination. That amply shows the disinterest or disrespect towards the Court. It is averred in the affidavit that there are earlier suits and the documents relating to those suits were not obtained. This is the suit of 2004. Chief affidavit of P.W.1 was filed two years back. If the petitioners did not obtain certified copies for all this time, it is nothing but gross negligence on the part of the petitioners. It is not known what are the documents that they have obtained after closing the cross-examination. The affidavit reveals now they obtained documents and ready to go with cross-examination. It is nothing but abuse of the process of Court. What prevented them in obtaining copies when he shit came up for trial is not explained. So, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, there is absolutely no ground to recall P.W.1 when the petitioners have shown gross negligence in either obtaining documents or proceeding cross-examination. So, this Court is not inclined to allow the petition. From the above, it is seen that the documents relating to the earlier suits were not obtained though the present suit was filed in the year 2004 nor the said fact was incorporated into the written statement filed by the petitioners/defendants. Only by way of filing the present IA, the documents sought to be received and P.W.1 was sought to be cross-examined to prove as to the existence of those documents. Everything was within the knowledge of the petitioners/defendants, but they have not taken care while cross-examining P.W.1. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned for more than 15 times. Under those circumstances, the trial Court has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants. I am of the opinion that the trial Court has furnished detailed cogent reasons for dismissing the application and no ground is made out calling for interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The civil revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 28th July, 2010 B/o. SKM