THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.1861 of 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order, dated 19.02.2010, passed by the learned VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, dismissing I.A.No.155 of 2010 in M.O.P.No.394 of 2007 filed under Order XIX Rule 1 CPC seeking to re-open the matter for adducing the evidence of respondent No.2. 2. The first respondent herein filed M.O.P.No.394 of 2007 seeking compensation payable to him by the petitioner-insurer and the second respondent-owner of the crime vehicle. In the said O.P., the petitioner filed the above said I.A. seeking to re-open the matter for adducing the evidence of respondent No.2-driver, who had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. On 19.02.2010, the trial Court observing that on 02.02.2010, respondent No.2 called absent and no representation; on 08.02.2010, P.W.2 filed affidavit and on 17.02.2010, there is no representation for the petitioner, dismissed the said I.A. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the trial Court closed the evidence of P.Ws., on 18.02.2010 and that on the very next day i.e., 19.02.2010 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, it dismissed the I.A. He further contended that if the evidence of respondent No.2 has not been adduced, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and thus, he prays to set aside the order impugned. 4. From a perusal of the order impugned, it is evident that the trial Court has recorded the absence of respondent No.2 on 02.02.2010, and on 08.02.2010, P.W.2 filed an affidavit and that it recorded the non-representation of the petitioner on 17.02.2010. As such, it can be inferred that there is no continuous absence on behalf of the petitioner, except on 17.02.2010. Further, the record also shows that the evidence of P.Ws was closed on 18.02.2010 and immediately on the next day, the said I.A. was dismissed. From this, it can be understood that the trial Court has not given any opportunity to the petitioner for examining respondent No.2- driver. 5. It is, no doubt, true that after closure of the evidence on behalf of the petitioners, an opportunity should be given to the respondents for adducing evidence on their behalf. In the case on hand, the petitioner pleads that the evidence of respondent No.2, the driver of the crime vehicle, is necessary for deciding his rash and negligent driving at the time of the accident and his liability towards compensation, but the trial Court without giving any opportunity to it, dismissed the I.A. by the order impugned. 6. In view of the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order impugned and consequently, I.A. is allowed. The petitioner is directed to adduce evidence of respondent No.2 on the date fixed by the trial Court. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:02.07.2010 Note: Issue CC within one week. (Bo) sj