THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3845 & 3846 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: The issue involved in these two revisions is one and the same. Hence, they are disposed of by this common order. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.70 of 2007 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool District, for recovery of amount, on the strength of a chit transaction, against respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and the petitioner herein. While the 2nd respondent is the principal borrower, respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the petitioner are the guarantors. It is stated that respondent Nos.2, 3, and 4 remained ex parte and the suit is being contested by the petitioner alone. The trial of the suit was commenced and PWs.1 and 2 were examined in chief. The trial Court closed their evidence. The petitioner filed I.A.Nos.449 and 450 of 2009 with a prayer to recall PWs.1 and 2 and to permit him to cross examine those witnesses respectively. The trial Court dismissed the applications through order dated 29.07.2009. Hence, these two revisions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court issued notice before admission to the respondents. The 1st respondent alone is the interested party. An interim stay was granted by this Court way back on 21.08.2009. The 1st respondent has not chosen to enter appearance, though he has knowledge of the proceedings before this Court. By himself the petitioner did not borrow any amount. He has to depend upon the 2nd respondent herein to resist the suit. However, not only the plaintiff himself, but also other two guarantors remained ex parte. The burden fell upon the petitioner alone. On a day stipulated for cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2, the petitioner has fallen ill. The applications filed by the petitioner were dismissed without any reasoned order. Further, it is not as if the trial Court has recorded any chief examination, except that PWs.1 and 2 have filed their affidavits in lieu of chief examination. Hardly there was any part played by the trial Court. This Court takes exception to the attitude exhibited by the trial Court. Hence, these two revisions are allowed, and the impugned orders are set aside. Consequently, I.A.Nos.449 and 450 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, shall stand allowed. It is directed that if any instance of lacuna or unreasoned orders come to the notice of this Court, observations of very serious nature would be made. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:14.12.2010 KH