THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3585 and 3601 of 2009 DATE:09.10.2009 Between: K. Sanjay Kumar … Petitioner And K. Chandrasekhar and two others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3585 and 3601 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These civil revision petitions arise out of a common order, dated 16.07.2009, passed by the trial court, in I.A.Nos.246 and 245 of 2009 in O.S.No.468 of 2002. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.468 of 2002 in the court of the XIII Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Secunderabad, against the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, for recovery of amount. The trial of the suit commenced. Affidavits in lieu of chief-examination of D.Ws.2 to 5 were filed on 15.12.2008. Since D.W.3 was not available for cross- examination, the affidavit filed by her was eschewed from consideration on 29.12.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.244, 245 and 246 of 2009 to reopen the evidence, to recall D.W.3, and to set aside the order, dated 29.12.2008, eschewing the chief-examination of D.W.3, respectively. The applications were opposed by the 1st respondent. Through a common order, dated 16.07.2009, the trial court dismissed the applications. Hence the revisions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The petitioner states that with a view to facilitate early disposal of the suit, the affidavits in lieu of chief- examination of four witnesses, namely D.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 5, were filed at a time, and D.W.3 was not available for cross-examination, on account of reasons beyond her control. It may be true that on account of non-availability of D.W.3, some inconvenience was caused to the court as well as the 1st respondent. All the same, the accidental absence of D.W.3 cannot be a ground to disentitle the petitioner to adduce the evidence of that witness. The trial court was anxious to dispose of the suit, since it is seven years old. This Court is of the view that D.W.3 can be permitted to depose on a specified date and further steps can be taken without any delay. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, and the common order under revisions is set aside. Consequently, I.A.Nos.245 and 246 of 2009 in O.S.No.468 of 2002 are allowed. The petitioner shall ensure that D.W.3 appears before the trial court on a specified date, as may be fixed by it, and his evidence shall be recorded, on that day itself. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J 9th October, 2009 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos. 3585 and 3601 of 2009 9th October, 2009 CBS