HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:271 OF 2010 Dated: 3.2.2010 Between: K. Sudha Reddy ..Petitioner And Madireddy Sripathi (Died) as per LR Smt. M. Srirama. .. Respondent. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:271 OF 2010 ORDER: Aggrieved by order, dated 16.11.2009 in E.A.No.663 of 2009 in EA.No.606 of 2009 in E.P.No.145 of 2005, passed by the learned V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the present civil revision petition has been preferred. The petitioner herein filed the above application under Order 19 Rule 2 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to summon the proposed respondent viz., K. Sri Rama and her previous counsel Sri Mallikarjuna Rao for cross-examination on the ground that the original plaintiff-decree holder died during the pendency of the appeal and the respondent had not brought the said fact to the knowledge of the Court and furnished the particulars of the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff-decree holder and that the petitioner informed the same to the Court and that after lapse of limitation as prescribed under Order 22 CPC, the respondent filed a petition under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC by changing the original counsel and that she made contradictory statements and personal allegations against the counsel derogating the professional ethics and dignity of advocacy, with a view to mislead the Court by suppressing the material facts. While opposing the above application, the respondent filed a counter contending that the party to the proceedings can only ask the deponent to be subjected for cross-examination, but the advocate cannot be asked to be summoned for cross-examination as he has not given any affidavit. Further she stated that she filed E.A.No.606 of 2009 under Section 146 CPC to implead her as legal heir of her husband-decree holder and that the petitioner has already impleaded her as legal heir of the original decree holder in the appeal. The Court below dismissed the above application. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present revision has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material on record. The application in E.A.No.606 of 2009 filed by the proposed respondent to implead her as legal heir of the decree holder is pending adjudication. At this stage, the present application is filed seeking to summon the proposed respondent and her previous counsel for cross- examination, on the ground that the proposed respondent had made some contradictory statements against her previous counsel in order to suppress the material facts. It is not disputed that the proposed respondent was impleaded in the appeal on the application filed by the petitioner herein. The petition filed by the proposed respondent in the E.P. for impleading her as legal representative of the deceased decree holder is pending. At this juncture, the present application for evaluation of the averments stated in the affidavit by summoning the deponent, and the counsel, who has not given any affidavit against the contradictory statements alleged to have been made against him, for cross-examination, cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the Court below has to evaluate the entire material in E.A.No.606 of 2009 for adjudicating the issue as to whether the proposed respondent is entitled to be impleaded as legal representative of the deceased decree holder to continue the proceedings claiming under him. Further, the petitioner has failed to establish the statements alleged to have been made by the proposed respondent against her previous counsel atleast by filing any material connecting therewith. Therefore, I feel that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the CRP is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date:3rd February, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:271 OF 2010 3.02.2010