THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5696 of 2008 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 03.11.2008, in I.A.No.359 of 2008 in O.S.No.1299 of 1998 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein- 8th defendant, seeking to recall D.W.2 for further cross- examination, was dismissed. 2. Heard the petitioner, who appears as party-in- person, and the learned counsel for the 5th respondent- 2nd plaintiff. None appeared for the other respondents. Perused the records. 3. Respondents 1 to 5 filed the suit for partition against the petitioner herein-8th defendant and the other defendants. During the course of the trial, D.W.2 was examined as a witness by the 2nd defendant. The said witness-D.W.2 was cross-examined by the 9th defendant at the first instance. As seen from the impugned order, defendants 4, 6 and 8 reported no cross-examination and therefore D.W.2 is permitted to be cross-examined by the plaintiff. Subsequently, 8th defendant filed the present application seeking opportunity to cross-examine D.W.2 on the ground that when the evidence of D.W.2 was recorded, he was sitting outside the Court and some one reported no cross-examination and he came to know of it only subsequently. The said application was opposed by the 2nd plaintiff on the ground that if the 8th defendant is permitted to cross-examine the witness it would cause prejudice to the 2nd plaintiff who has already cross- examined the witness. The trial Court dismissed the application observing that the petitioner-8th defendant ought to have been present in the Court when the evidence was being recorded and his plea that he was sitting outside the Court and therefore not aware of the proceedings cannot be believed. 4. Petitioner-8th defendant, who is appearing as a party in person, only seeks an opportunity to cross- examine D.W.2. Admittedly, he has not cross-examined the said witness before. No doubt, he ought to have cross-examined D.W.2 before the said witness was cross- examined by the plaintiff. He, however, pleads that as he was sitting outside the Court, he was not aware of the fact that the cross-examination on his behalf was reported as ‘nil’. 5. Be that as it may, in the interest of justice and to give a fair opportunity to the parties to cross-examine the witness introduced by the other side, it is considered that the petitioner-8th defendant can be permitted to cross- examine D.W.2. The 2nd plaintiff is at liberty to seek permission of the trial Court to further cross-examine D.W.2 after cross-examining the said witness by the petitioner-D6, if need be. Petitioner-8th defendant is therefore permitted to cross-examine D.W.2 on a date to be fixed by the trial Court and in the event of his failure to avail this opportunity, his right to cross-examine D.W.2 would stand forfeited. The impugned order is accordingly set aside. 6. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed as stated above. Interim stay granted on 24.12.2008 stands vacated. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 07th September, 2011. Tsy