THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4412 OF 2010, CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4457 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4469 OF 2010 DATED: 12.11.2010 In CRP No.4412 of 2010: Yeggina Vara Laskhmi .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Yeggina Venkata Mahalakshmi and others. .. Respondents In CRP No.4457 of 2010: Yeggina Vara Laskhmi .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Yeggina Venkata Mahalakshmi and others. .. Respondents A N D In CRP No.4469 of 2010: Yeggina Vara Laskhmi .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Yeggina Venkata Mahalakshmi and others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4412 OF 2010, CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4457 OF 2010 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4469 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER : These three Revision Petitions arose out of the proceedings in O.S.No.54 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the I-Additional District Judge, W.G. District at Eluru. The Revision petitioner is the defendant No.6 in the suit. The 2nd respondent herein filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into six equal shares and for delivery of possession of one such share to her. The 1st respondent herein who is arrayed as defendant No.1 in O.S.No.54 of 1999 filed a separate suit being O.S.No.148 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem against the Revision petitioner and others for permanent injunction in respect of the very same properties. O.S.No.148 of 1999 was transferred to the Court of the I-Additional District Judge, Eluru and was renumbered as O.S.No.32 of 2006. Both the suits are clubbed and common evidence has been recorded. Whereas the plaintiff in O.S.No.54 of 1999 was examined as P.W.2, the plaintiff in O.S.No.32 of 2006 (1st defendant in O.S.No.54 of 1999 / 1st respondent herein) was examined as P.W.1. The Revision petitioner, who is the defendant No.6 in O.S.No.54 of 1999 got himself examined as D.W.1 and 7 more witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants. After the evidence of both sides was closed and the suit was coming up for arguments, the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff in O.S.No.32 of 2006 and the 1st defendant in O.S.No.54 of 1999 filed I.A.Nos.999 of 2009, 1029 of 2010 and 1030 of 2010 with a prayer to recall D.W.1 (Revision petitioner) for cross-examination by reopening the evidence. Though the Revision petitioner opposed the said applications, the Court below by common order dated 17.8.2010 allowed all the applications and D.Ws.1 to 3 were recalled for cross- examination. Aggrieved by the same, these three Revision Petitions are filed. Having heard the leaned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the material available on record, I am unable to hold that the Court below had committed any illegality in recalling D.Ws.1 to 3 for cross-examination by the 1st defendant. On examination of the record, it was found by the Court below that D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined in order to prove Ex.B-3 Will propounded by the defendant No.6 (the Revision Petitioner) and that no opportunity was given to the 1st defendant who denied Ex.B-3, to cross-examine the D.Ws.1 to 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court below thought it fit to recall D.Ws.1 to 3 for cross-examination by the 1st defendant’s counsel. The said discretion exercised by the Court below, on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case cannot be held to be erroneous on any ground whatsoever and therefore the interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not warranted. However since the suits are of the year 1999, there shall be a direction to the Court below to complete the cross-examination of D.Ws.1 to 3 by the 1st defendant’s counsel as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The three Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 12.11.2010 Note: Issue C.C. in one week. gbs