IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1273 AND 1274 OF 2011 Between : Dr.G.P.Linga Reddy ... PETITIONER A N D E.Guru Reddy. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs. 1273 OF 2011 & 1274 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are directed against the orders, dated 20.01.2011, in I.A.Nos.1075 of 2010 and 1076 of 2010, in O.S.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, whereunder and whereby, I.A.No.1075 of 2010 filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) for reopening the case for further cross examination of P.W.1, and I.A.No.1076 of 2010, filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall P.W.1 for further cross- examination, were dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The respondent herein filed O.S.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni for refund of the amount alleged to have been paid to the petitioner/defendant under an agreement of sale. Pending the suit, the petitioner herein filed the above Interlocutory Applications, for reopening the suit for recalling P.W.1 for further cross-examination. After hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed the said applications. 4. In the affidavit filed in support of the petitions, it was stated that the suit was posted to 22.10.2010 for cross-examination of P.W.1 and on that day, counsel for P.W.1 attended the Court at 2:30 PM as he went to see his junior counsel’s mother who was hospitalized; that by the time he came to Adoni, the local advocate who is appearing along with him cross-examined P.W.1 without having any bundle and without knowledge about the facts of the case. The advocate himself gave an affidavit stating that the Junior Advocate has cross-examined P.W.1 without having knowledge about the facts of the case. That aspect is not in dispute. From the record, it is clear that P.W.1 was not cross- examined in all aspects. The counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is an advocate from Kurnool, is conducting the case. Therefore, having regard to the facts, the trial Court ought to have fixed a date to enable the counsel appearing for the petitioner from Kurnool to cross- examine P.W.1 as P.W.1 was not cross-examined in all respects. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders, dated 20.01.2011 in I.A.No.1075 of 2010 in I.A.No.1076 of 2010 in O.S.No.18 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, and consequently, the said applications shall stand allowed. The trial Court is directed to fix a date for appearance of P.W.1 and on that day, the counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant shall cross-examine P.W.1 without taking any adjournment. For any reason, if the counsel fails to cross-examine P.W.1 on the day so fixed by the trial Court, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed further in the Suit and the right of the petitioner to recall P.W.1 shall stand forfeited. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU. J OCTOBER 14, 2011. YVL