HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. Nos.4409 of 2009 & 4645 of 2009 DATE:05-02-2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4409 OF 2009 BETWEEN Shaik Moulali …Petitioner AND Sathi Manikanta Reddy …Respondent CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4645 OF 2009 BETWEEN Shaik Moulali …Petitioner AND Sathi Manikanta Reddy …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4409 of 2009 and 4645 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions are filed by the defendant against the orders of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram, dated 3.08.2009 dismissing I.A.Nos.659 of 2009 and 660 of 2009 in O.S.No.24 of 2006 filed for re-opening the evidence of plaintiff’s side and for recalling of P.Ws.1 and 2 for their cross-examination respectively. In spite of service of notice on the counsel for the respondent-plaintiff on 31.12.2009, there is no representation on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff. The respondent herein filed the above suit for recovery of money basing on a promissory note and contesting the suit petitioner-defendant filed his written statement on 10.4.2006, but thereafter neither he attended the Court nor gave instructions to his advocate to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 on the affidavits filed by them in lieu of chief-examinations on 6.7.2009 and 20.7.2009 though they attended the Court for cross-examination, and that at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, the cross-examination was deferred upto 28.11.2009, and that even on the said date, the petitioner-defendant failed to attend the Court. Hence, the evidence on the plaintiff’s side was closed as no cross-examination. Later, the petitioner-defendant filed the present impugned I.As. contending that due to ill-health, he could not contact his advocate and give necessary instruction for cross- examination of P.Ws.1 and 2. The lower Court by the impugned order dismissed both the I.As. holding that when the petitioner-defendant has sufficiently instructed at the time of preparing his defence by way of filing the written statement, the advocate on record could have proceeded with the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 unless the petitioner instructed him not to do so, and therefore, the reason for not proceeding with the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 and filing the impugned applications after seven days of filing of evidence in chief of P.Ws.1 and 2, is only to drag on the matter. Further P.W.1 is a government employee, who is on probation and P.W.2 is an employee in the Revenue Department and their presence once again in the Court will not be possible since they have attended twice earlier. Having regard to the fact that the suit itself is filed for recovery of money, to give an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2, the lower Court ought to have allowed the I.As. by appointing a commissioner to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 on petitioner depositing costs for appointment of commission or in the alternatively, it could have recalled P.Ws.1 and 2 on a specific date for the purpose of cross-examination on petitioner bearing their traveling expenses. Under those circumstances, the impugned common orders are set aside and I.A.Nos.659 of 2009 and 660 of 2009 shall stand allowed. On petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the credit of the suit within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the lower Court is directed either to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 or to appoint an advocate- commissioner for the purpose of their cross-examination by the petitioner duly fixing the fee of the commissioner. The revisions are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 05, 2010 Tsr.