THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA Civil Revision Petition No.1262 of 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order, dated 12.11.2008, passed by the learned Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, in I.A.No.861 of 2009 in O.P.No.216 of 2008. The petitioner and the respondent are the wife and husband. The respondent-husband filed the OP seeking divorce and when the OP is coming up for arguments, the petitioner-wife filed the present application under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC to re-call PW.1 to enable her to confront the respondent-husband with certain documents contending that the said documents were not available at the time of cross-examination of PW.1. The respondent-husband filed counter opposing the application and contending that the present application was filed only to drag on the proceedings. The trial Court, while holding that the documents now sought to be confronted by the petitioner are of the year 2000 and are very much available at the time of cross-examination of PW.1, dismissed the application observing that the petitioner has already marked the very documents in her cross-examination and therefore, she can as well advance her arguments in respect of the same at the time of hearing the OP, without re-calling PW.1. Hence, the present civil revision petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the material on record. As can be seen from the impugned order, the OP is at the stage of arguments and at that stage, the petitioner-defendant filed the present application to re-call PW.1 for further cross-examination to enable her to confront the respondent with certain documents contending that she obtained the certified copies of those documents subsequent to the cross-examination of PW.1, as those documents were filed before XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Mahila Court at Nampally in the criminal case pending between the parties. The trial Court having considered the material on record has categorically held that the documents now sought to be confronted are very much available at the time when PW.1 was cross-examined and further held that the very documents were already marked in her cross-examination and therefore, the petitioner can advance her arguments in respect of the same at the time of hearing the OP without re-calling PW.1. This Court discerns no infirmity in the reasoning given by the trial Court while dismissing the application. The civil revision petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:01.02.2010 VGB