HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No:7 & 11 OF 2010 Dated: 25.3.2010 Between: 1. M.S. Swathi and others. ..Petitioners And 1. M. Lalitha Bai and others. .. Respondents. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No:7 & 11 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: Challenging the common order, dated 3.12.2009 in I.A.Nos.2370 and 2369 of 2009 in O.S.No.69 of 2005, passed by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, the present civil revision petitions have been preferred. Since both the revision petitions arise from out of a common order and the parties are common, these petitions are being disposed of by this common order. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs filed the above applications seeking to reopen the defendants’ side evidence and to recall D.W.1 for further cross- examination. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the cross-examination of D.W.1 was recorded by the Advocate-Commissioner and at the time of recording the evidence, the Counsel for defendants 9 to 12 sat in between plaintiffs’ counsel and the witness viz., D.W.1 and started giving answers on behalf of D.W.1 and therefore, the plaintiffs’ Counsel could not cross-examine D.W.1 effectively due to the constant interference of the counsel for defendants 9 to 12 and therefore, their counsel reserved right to further cross-examine D.W.1 by informing the same to the Court by filing a memo on 24.8.2009. The Court below dismissed the above applications. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions have been preferred. Heard the learned counsel and perused the impugned order. Admittedly, in the instant case, on 24.8.2009 Advocate- Commissioner filed his report and the evidence of the defendants was closed. At this stage, the plaintiffs filed the present applications. If really, the plaintiffs felt that the counsel for the defendants is constantly interfering with the cross-examination of D.W.1, they ought to have brought the said fact to the notice of the Advocate Commissioner or raised an objection. There is no material on record to show that the plaintiffs raised any objections before the Advocate Commissioner or brought the said fact to the notice of the Court below. Therefore, I feel that the order passed by the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. Since the suit is of the year 2005, the Court below is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date:25th March, 2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS No:7 and 11 OF 2010 25.03.2010