THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3429 of 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 03.07.2009 passed in I.A.No.503 of 2009 in O.S.No.66 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the second defendant under Order XVIII Rule 17(2) C.P.C to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for cross-examination. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 02.09.2009. The respondent received notice. The petitioner is the second defendant, whereas, the respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.66 of 2007. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money. The defendants failed to file written statement and thereafter failed to participate in the suit proceedings and thereby an ex parte decree came to be passed against them on 18.07.2007. Subsequently, the petitioner-second defendant filed petition to set aside the ex parte decree vide I.A.No.37 of 2008 and the same came to be allowed. The plaintiff examined two witnesses on 23.04.2009. The petitioner-second defendant failed to cross-examine them and consequently, cross-examination came to be reported as “NIL”. The case underwent further adjournments and ultimately the evidence came to be closed. While the case was coming up for arguments, the petitioner filed I.A.No.503 of 2009 to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for cross-examination. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties came to the conclusion that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the case and that the petitioner moved the application with an intention to drag on the proceedings and thereby dismissed the application by order dated 03.07.2009. Hence, this revision by the petitioner-second defendant. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in this revision petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 on 23.04.2009 because of some ceremonies to be performed by him at his house. As seen from the order impugned in the revision, the case underwent many adjournments from 23.04.2009. Ultimately, the evidence came to the closed and the case stood posted to 22.06.2009 for arguments. The learned Senior Civil Judge considered the docket proceedings and also conduct of the petitioner-second defendant and proceeded to dismiss the application. I deem it appropriate to refer to para-5 of the order impugned in this revision, which reads as under: “The present petition is filed on 22.06.2009 seeking this Court to recall P.Ws.1 and 2. It is pertinent to mention that the evidence on both sides was closed and unless the case is reopened the petition to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be entertained. Apart from that as seen from the docket proceedings the defendant and the counsel for the defendant never appeared before the court on the dates of hearing. Further on 11.06.2009 when the counsel for the defendant appeared before the Court this matter was posted for the evidence of the defendants and, therefore, by 11.06.2009 itself he is aware that the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was closed. In stead of filing the petition seeking to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 at least on 11.06.2009 he allowed to adjourn the matter on request and on further payment of cost till 19.06.2009 on which date neither the defendant nor the counsel for the defendant appeared nor made any representation and when the matter was posted for hearing on 22.06.2009 the petitioner came up with present petition. No doubt, in the petition the petitioner contended that he could not appear and give instructions to his counsel on 23.04.2009 as he participated in funerals of his father. But it is not explained by him as to why he could not approach the Court immediately after 23.04.2009 though the matter was adjourned for the purpose of cross- examination of P.W.1 from 23.04.2009 to 30.04.2009. Thus, as per the docket proceedings from the beginning the defendant is not diligent in pursuing his case. Thus, from the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting his case and it is clear that he is intended to drag on the proceedings. I find no merits in this petition and the petition is dismissed.” The learned Senior Civil Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons for dismissing the application filed by the petitioner-second defendant. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in the order impugned in this revision in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Date: 17.11.2009 va