THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2639 OF 2010 AND 2640 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.2640 of 2010, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 15.10.2009, in I.A.No.523 of 2008 in O.S.No.100 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed to reopen the defendants’ side evidence, was dismissed for default. 2. C.R.P.No.2639 of 2010, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 15.10.2009, in I.A.No.524 of 2008 in O.S.No.100 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed to recall DW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination on the ground that the previous counsel of the petitioner/plaintiff had not cross-examined DW.1, was dismissed as infructuous on the ground that the other I.A.No523 of 2008, filed to reopen the evidence on defendants’ side, was dismissed. 3. Heard. 4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by respondent No.2 in the trial Court giving dates of adjournments taken by the petitioner. Even though the trial Court imposed costs on several occasions, the petitioner did not care to cross-examine DW.1. As many as twelve adjournments have been granted for the purpose of cross-examination of DW.1. This attitude of taking adjournments and making the witness to roam around the Court is highly deprecated. Such a course is not open to litigant party so as to misuse the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. But, considering the fact that there are some laches on the part of the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the trial Court and the petitioner has changed his advocate, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to cross-examine DW.1. The counsel for the petitioner stated that if a date is so fixed by the trial Court, the petitioner is ready to proceed with the cross-examination of DW.1, without taking further adjournments in the matter. The right to cross-examine is an indefeasible right where one party can impeach the evidence of other. If the witness is not cross-examined at all, it goes without saying that the fact has been admitted. Though it is not a case to show any indulgence on the petitioner, in view of the fact that DW.1 was not at all cross- examined by the counsel for the petitioner in the trial Court and to safeguard the interest of the petitioner, one more opportunity can be given to the petitioner to cross-examine DW.1 by imposing some costs. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders, dated 15.10.2009, in I.A.Nos.523 of 2008 and 524 of 2008 in O.S.No.100 of 2005, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondents in the trial Court within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such payment that may be made by the petitioner, the trial Court shall fix a date to cross-examine DW.1. It is made clear that if the petitioner’s counsel fails to cross-examine DW.1 on the date so fixed by the trial Court, it shall be deemed that the right to cross-examine DW.1 is waived. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 22, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2639 OF 2010 AND 2640 OF 2010 C.R.P.No.2639 of 2010: Between: Sri Lakshmi Enterprises .....PETITIONER AND Nil Kamal Plastics and another ....RESPONDENTS C.R.P.No.2640 of 2010: Between: Sri Lakshmi Enterprises .....PETITIONER AND Nil Kamal Plastics and another ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2639 OF 2010 AND 2640 OF 2010 October 22, 2010