IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.1077 AND 1078 OF 2010 CIVLI REVISION PETITION NO.1077 OF 2007 Between: P.Manohar .... PETITIONER A N D Santoshi Rani …RESPONDENT CIVL REVISION PETITION NO.1078 OF 2010 Between: P.Manohar .... PETITIONER A N D Santoshi Rani …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.1077 AND 1078 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the order, dated 16.02.2010 in I.A.Nos.46 and 47 of 2010 in O.S.No.114 of 2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, whereunder and whereby, I.A.No. 46 of 2010, filed to re-open the evidence of P.W.1 for further evidence, was allowed and I.A.No.47 of 2010, filed to restore the evidence of P.W.1, was dismissed. 2. In both the cases the petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. Both the I.As.are arising out of the same suit and the parties are also same and hence they are being disposed of by this common order. 3. I.A.No.46 of 2010 is filed under Section 151 CPC seeking to reopen the evidence of petitioner for producing further evidence. The said petition was allowed on payment of costs of Rs.300/- and also on condition that P.W.2 must be present for cross- examination on 19.2.2010. 4. I.A.No.47 of 2001 is filed under Section 151 CPC to restore the evidence of petitioner, which was eschewed on 04.12.2009. The said petition was dismissed, observing that the petitioner has not filed any medical evidence in support of his contention. Further the suit is of the year 2004 and identified long back for disposal. Therefore, the said I.A. was dismissed. 5. This Court while ordering notice before admission granted interim stay. The said notice has been served on the respondent, but none appeared on her behalf nor there is any representation on her behalf. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that it is a comprehensive suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, and the evidence of P.W.1 plays vital role in getting proper relief from the Court below. 8. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the averment of the petitioner that he was suffering with ill heath, I am of the view that the Court below committed error in eschewing the evidence of P.W.1. Therefore, the order passed by the Court below in I.A.No.47 of 2010 in O.S.No.114 of 2004 dated 16.02.2010 is set aside and the evidence of P.W.1 in chief is restored and the matter is remitted back to the Court below for giving opportunity to the petitioner for cross-examining the petitioner. 9. In view of this order that unless P.W.1 is cross-examined, the evidence of other witnesses cannot be recorded. In view of the same, the order dated 16.02.2010, directing P.W.2 to present on 19.02.2010 for cross-examination is modified to the effect that after completion of the evidence of P.W.1 the other evidence on behalf of plaintiff maybe recorded. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J SEPTEMBER 21, 2010. YVL