THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5149 of 2011 Dated:09.12.2011 Between: Damisetti Ramakrishna. …Petitioner and Damisetti Veena, And another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5149 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.64 of 2009 on the ﬁle of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada. The respondents (wife and son of the petitioner) ﬁled the suit for maintenance. When the suit is coming up for trial, the respondents ﬁled I.A.No.1346 of 2011 under Order XVIII Rule 3(A) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking permission to the ﬁrst respondent to give evidence on her behalf after all her witnesses are examined. The father of the ﬁrst respondent ﬁled an aﬃdavit stating that as the ﬁrst respondent has gone to Geneva, Switzerland, and is likely to come later, she may be permitted to give evidence after all her witnesses are examined. The application was opposed. Considering the rival contentions, the Court below exercised discretion in favour of the respondents and allowed the application. Being aggrieved, the defendant ﬁled the instant Civil Revision Petition. This Court after hearing the Counsel for the petitioner is convinced that the impugned order of the Court below does not suﬀer from any error apparent on the face of the record. It was contended before the Court that the ﬁrst respondent can be examined by appointment of Advocate Commissioner at Geneva. This did not carry much weight with the lower Court. The plea that the ﬁrst respondent might ﬁll up the lacunae if she is allowed to be examined herself later, was rejected, observing that the ﬁrst respondent can give evidence after she returns to India. Having regard to the fact that the dispute is between the wife and son on one hand and the husband of the ﬁrst respondent on the other hand in the case of maintenance, this Court is convinced that no prejudice would be caused if permission is granted to the ﬁrst respondent to be examined later. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 09.12.2011 vs