HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3617 of 2010 Date: September 13, 2010 Between: K. Sreenivasa Rao. …Petitioner/Defendant No.4 And 1. Anuradha Gupta and 3 others. …Respondents/Defendants 1, 2 & 3 * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3617 of 2010 ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the docket order dated 28.7.2010 in O.S. No.59 of 2007 on the file of XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereunder and whereby the objection of the petitioner/D4 was overruled and an Advocate- Commissioner was appointed to record cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the affidavit of P.W.1 in lieu of chief-examination was filed in the month of June 2008 and thereafter another affidavit in lieu of chief-examination was again filed in June 2010 which is contrary to law and therefore the affidavit in lieu of chief-examination filed in the month of June 2010 has to be eschewed from consideration in view of the fact that the affidavit of P.W.1 in lieu of chief-examination was already filed. The said fact had not been denied and disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. There cannot be two affidavits in lieu of chief-examination of the same witness. Therefore, the chief affidavit filed in the month of June 2010 has to be eschewed from consideration. When the chief-affidavit of P.W.1 was filed in the month of June 2008, P.W.1 has to be cross- examined by the defendants. Therefore, liberty is given to the respondents to treat the affidavit filed in lieu of chief-examination in the month of June 2008 as the evidence of P.W.1 and if any further chief evidence of P.W.1 has to be testified, the respondents can do so and the respondents can also mark the documents through P.W.1. Similarly, the chief-affidavit of P.W.2 is also filed and he has to be cross-examined. An opportunity can be given to the petitioner herein to cross-examine both the witnesses one after another. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that certain inadmissible documents have been marked through P.W.2 and he is not the person connected with the said documents. Therefore, it is made clear that admissibility or relevancy of the said documents can be decided at the later point of time. 6. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of directing the trial court to treat the affidavit of P.W.1 filed in lieu of chief-examination in the month of June 2008 as the evidence of P.W.1 and the same may be continued for further chief-examination and cross-examination and re-examination, if any, and the petitioner’s/D-4’s counsel in the trial court is at liberty to cross-examine both the witnesses. No costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J Date: September 13, 2010. BSB