HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NOs.3734 and 3770 of 2008 Dt.26.11.2010 C.R.P.NO.3734 OF 2008 Between: Anil Kumar Honda ..Petitioner And Hemraj Jain ..Respondent C.R.P.NO.3770 OF 2008 Between: Anil Kumar Honda ..Petitioner And Hemraj Jain ..Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NOs.3734 and 3770 of 2008 ORDER: Heard both the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent. The parties in both the civil revision petitions are one and the same. Petitioner herein in both the revision petitions is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.146 of 2006 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, filed by the respondent for recovery of money basing on the pronote. It is stated that the evidence in the said O.S.No.146 of 2006 on behalf of the plaintiff as well as the defendant is over and when the matter was coming up for arguments and stands posted to 30.6.2008, the defendant came up with two applications on that day under Section 151 C.P.C., and under Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. to reopen and recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for the purpose of further cross-examination. The grounds stated in the affidavit in support of the application are that recently he has changed the advocate and the said advocate have suggested that some important aspects are to be posed to the witnesses in order to dig out the real facts in issue which will help for better appreciation of evidence on record and for better adjudication of the suit. Therefore, as per the advise of the changed counsel the said applications are filed for recall P.Ws.1 to 3 for further cross-examination. Counter has been filed in the said petitions opposing for reopening and recalling the witnesses stating that the advocate cross-examined basing on the instructions of the client and the subsequent advocate cannot sit in appeal and decide about the cross-examination made by the earlier counsel forgetting the fact that the earlier cross-examination has been done as per instructions of the same defendant. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that no specific reasons have been assigned for reopening and recalling the witnesses when the evidence was closed and the matter was coming up for arguments. The said two applications are filed without satisfying the legal requirement for recalling and reopening the suit for the purpose of further cross-examination. I do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise to interfere with the order impugned. The civil revision petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 26.11.2010 kpr