HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO. 2145 OF 2010 Thursday, the Twentieth day of January, Two Thousand and Eleven Between K.Venugopal Petitioner AND K.Venkateswarlu and others Respondents COMMON ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 6.11.2009 passed in I.A. No. 1057 of 2009 in O.S. No. 30 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff who filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.64,80,000/- towards damages. Written statement was filed by the first defendant namely Kandati Venkateswarulu and thereafter the petitioner filed his evidence affidavit in November, 2007 and he was cross examined on 14.7.2009. Immediately thereafter, the first defendant filed an application in IA No. 1057 of 2009 under Sec.151 CPC for reopening the matter for the specific purpose of posing certain questions to PW-1 with regard to the earlier criminal proceedings with reference to CC No. 430 of 1998 on the file of the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam. The second defendant namely V.Siddha Reddy, filed IA No. 1114 of 2009 under Order IX Rule 7 CPC to set aside the exparte order passed against him on 3.1.2009. The said I.A. No. 1114 of 2009 was allowed on the condition of his paying costs of Rs.500/- to the plaintiff and to file the written statement on or before 20.11.2009. IA No. 1057 of 2009 was filed for reopening the matter for the specific purpose of posing certain questions to PW- 1on the earlier criminal proceedings, was allowed by order dated 6.11.2009. The court below allowed IA No. 1057 subject to the condition of the first defendant paying costs of Rs.500/- to recall PW-1 for the specific purpose of posing certain vital questions to him on the earlier criminal proceedings. This court did not grant any stay and, therefore, the PW-1 might have already been recalled and cross-examined by this time. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to enlighten about the subsequent events that have taken place. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not see any infirmity in the order impugned warranting interference by this court. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah January 20, 2011 MAS