THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.Nos.1316 & 1353 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Since the parties in both the revision petitions are one and the same, these two revision petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. The petitioner filed these two revision petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the common order dated 5.02.2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, in I.A.Nos.1366 and 1365 of 2008 in O.S.No.481 of 2006. The petitioner is the plaintiff. She filed the above suit on the file of for partition of the suit schedule properties. It is stated that the plaintiff’s evidence was closed and the suit was posted to 4.08.2008 for the evidence of the defendants. DW.2 filed his chief examination affidavit on 2.09.2008 and the case was posted to 9.09.2008 for cross- examination of DWs.1 and 2 on payment of costs of Rs.50/-. As the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff failed to examine DWs.1 and 2 and there was no representation on his behalf, the mater was adjourned to 16.09.2008 for further evidence of DWs.1 and 2. On 30.10.2008 the evidence of the defendants was closed and the case was posted for arguments. Meanwhile, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.1082 of 2008 to recall DWs.1 and 2, and the same was allowed on 21.10.2008 on payment of costs of Rs.400/- and the matter was posted to 4.11.2008 for cross-examination of DWs.1 and 2. On that day, at the request of the plaintiff, it was adjourned to 11.11.2008. On 11.11.2008 also as there was no representation on behalf of the plaintiff, the cross- examination of the defendants was recorded as closed. Therefore, the plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.1365 and 1366 of 2008 to reopen the case and to recall DWs.1 and 2 for cross-examination. Though the said applications have been filed on 13.11.2008, as the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff reported ‘not ready’, the case was adjourned to 18.12.2008 and again at the request of the plaintiff’s advocate it was adjourned to 22.01.2009 and on 22.01.2009 also the advocate was not ready and the matter was posted to 29.01.2009, on which date also the advocate did not argue the matter, hence the applications have been dismissed with costs. Aggrieved by the same, these two revision petitions have been filed. I do not see any justification on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner in not appearing before the lower Court and the way in which he callously and negligently sought for adjournments without reporting ready to argue the applications. But however, as the suit itself is for partition, I am of the opinion that it is just and proper to set aside the impugned order and allow the applications on payment costs of Rs.5000/- to the defendants. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and these two Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. Consequently, I.A.Nos.1365 and 1366 of 2008 stand allowed on payment of costs of Rs.5000/- by the plaintiff to the defendants within a period of two weeks from today. On such payment of costs, the trial Court shall post the suit for the purpose of cross-examination of DWs.1 and 2. If the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff fails to appear on that particular date of cross- examination, his right to cross-examine the defendants shall be forfeited and the suit may be proceeded further. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (V. ESWARAIAH, J.) 17th July, 2009 Note: C.C. in two days. (B/o) Js.