THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4242 of 2006 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.29 of 2005. During the course of trial, when the matter was coming up for cross examination of P.W.1 - the first petitioner, as he was absent, his right to lead evidence was eschewed and his evidence was closed on 07.06.2006. Therefore, the petitioners filed two applications – I.A.No.89 of 2006 for reopening the evidence of P.W.1 and I.A.No.90 of 2006 to review the order dated 07.06.2006. The Court below, though allowed I.A.No.89 of 2006 on 07.07.2006, on the same day dismissed I.A.No.90 of 2006 only on the ground that the provision mentioned in the said application was not applicable. Hence, this revision. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides and having perused the material on record, this Court is of the view that apparently the approach of the Court below was totally inconsistent. Once the matter gets reopened in I.A.No.89 of 2006 for the purpose of leading evidence of P.W.1, the Court below ought not to have dismissed I.A.No.90 of 2006 merely on the ground that wrong provision was mentioned in that application because it does not service any purpose. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and accordingly impugned order dated 07.07.2006 passed in I.A.No.90 of 2006 in O.S.No.29 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, is set aside and the I.A.No.90 of 2006 stands allowed. No costs. ___________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J 15th July, 2010 GHN