IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.5863 & 5936 OF 2008 Between: Nadupuru Srinivasa Rao …Petitioner A n d Tatapudi Satyanarayana …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.Nos.5863 & 5936 OF 2008 COMMON ORDER: These civil revision petitions are directed against the order dated 06.11.2008 in I.A.Nos.1049 and 1048 of 2008 respectively in O.S.No.291 OF 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, wherein the said applications filed by the petitioner herein for recalling P.W.1 for further cross-examination by reopening his evidence, were dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent in both the revisions. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit against the petitioner/ defendant for recovery of certain amount allegedly due. The petitioner filed written statement disputing his liability. After settlement of issues, the trial of the suit was taken up. The plaintiff’s side evidence was closed. While D.W.2 was being examined, the plaintiff has produced a document Ex.A-9 and D.W.2 while denying the said document admitted the signature alone thereon. As seen from the impugned order, the document as such is not marked but only the signature admitted by D.W.2 was marked. 4. The petitioner/defendant would contend that in another proceeding in C.C.No.221 of 2004, the plaintiff herein has denied the existence of the same document which is now confronted to D.W.2. The petitioner/defendant, therefore, seeks to re-call P.W.1 for further cross-examination by reopening his evidence on the said aspect. Inasmuch as it is stated that the plaintiff has denied the existence of the said document in another proceeding and he produced the very same document in the present suit to confront D.W.2, it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the petitioner/defendant to cross-examine P.W.1 on the said aspect. The petitioner/defendant is, therefore, permitted to re-call P.W.1 for the said limited purpose. The petitioner/defendant shall cross-examine P.W.1 on a date fixed by the trial Court and in the event of failure to avail the said opportunity, his right to further cross-examine P.W.1 would stand forfeited. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. 5. In the result, the civil revision petitions are allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 05th September, 2011 Lrkm