HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2033 and 2048 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are disposed of by a common order. Both the Civil Revision Petition Nos.2033 and 2048 of 2011 are filed by the defendants in O.S.No.1391 of 2009 on the file of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Judge, Hyderabad, aggrieved by the order, dated 26.04.2011, passed in I.A.Nos.237 and 236 of 2011, filed under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking to set aside the order, dated 11.04.2011, and under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking to recall P.W-1 for the purpose of cross-examination, respectively, whereby the said applications were dismissed. In I.A.No.236 of 2011, the trial Court recorded that the matter was adjourned more than thrice for cross- examination of P.W-1 and that finally, on 11.04.2011, on which date the matter was posted from 31.03.2011 with a direction to both P.W-1 and petitioner counsel to be present, neither the petitioner nor her party in suit was present in the trial work after requesting the matter to be passed over. It also observed that this attitude of the petitioner reflects his mind of not showing importance and obedience to the orders of the Court and accordingly, dismissed the application. In I.A.No.237 of 2011, a single line order was passed as follows: - “With same reasons as in I.A.No.236 of 2011, this petition is dismissed.” Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the record. The impugned order was passed by the trial Court on the ground of non-co-operation and disobedience of the orders of the Court in the matter of proceeding with the trial of the suit. Admittedly, the petitioners were given sufficient opportunity i.e., the matter was adjourned more than thrice for the purpose of cross-examination of P.W-1. Finally, it was adjourned to 11.04.2011 with a direction to the petitioners and P.W-1 to be present on that day for proceeding with the trial of the suit. However, due to the absence of the petitioners before the Court, the trial Court took the step of dismissing the applications itself not being satisfied with the attitude of the petitioners in not complying with the conditional order passed by it to proceed with the trial of the suit on 11.04.2011. Notwithstanding, the reasons or observations made by the trial Court in the impugned order, it is well settled law that the right of a party to cross- examine the witness is a valuable right. The same cannot be denied or forfeited unless there are improper or illegal grounds urged by the parties. In the case on hand, no doubt, the mater was posted to 11.04.2011, by the trial Court with a conditional order to both the petitioners and P.W-1 to be present for proceeding with the trial of the suit. However, it is the case of the petitioners that due to the reason that the senior counsel appearing for the petitioners was held up in High Court, the matter was sought to be passed over initially, during the call work and then, again when it was called at 11.50 am, it was sought to be passed over. In any event, because of the absence or non-co-operation of the counsel, the parties should not be put to hardship and their valuable right to cross-examine a witness cannot be denied or forfeited. In that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, setting aside the orders, dated 26.04.2011, passed in I.A.Nos.236 and 237 of 2011 in O.S.No.1391 of 2009 on the file of the III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the matter is remitted to the Court below. The petitioners are directed to commence and complete the cross- examination of P.W-1 within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the impugned orders shall hold good. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED​ 15th July 2011 Note: Issue CC in two days. B/o DR