THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO Dated:11th February 2010 C.R.P.No.530 of 2010 Between: Chennuri Satyanarayan …Petitioner And Pachipulusu Ramanadham & Ors …Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.530 of 2010 O R D E R: The petitioner, who is the defendant, filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking the correctness of the order in dismissing an application purported to have been filed under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure where under he wanted to reopen his evidence and recall the plaintiff. The main purpose for which the petitioner now wants to recall is that his counsel did not cover the aspect in respect of certain costs and therefore he wants to recall. Admittedly the suit is for recovery based on a promissory note and the Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that the petitioner has not made out any proper case or shown any reason warranting such exercise. Further, it is observed rightly by the Court below that the affidavit filed in support of the application is totally vague and no proper reason has been assigned. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the affidavit filed in support and also the grounds of revision, I am of the opinion that the entire affidavit filed in support of the application is very vague and bald. Except making such allegations which itself cannot be a ground nor can be encouraged as such and no proper foundation has been laid for such an exercise. It has to be observed that the parties cannot simply get away by making allegations against their own counsel unless and until it is shown that appropriate action is initiated against such counsel. I do not find any warrant to interfere with the order of the Court below. There are no merits in the revision and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ B.PRAKASH RAO,J 11th February 2010 grk THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.No.530 of 2010 Dated:11th February 2010