IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5428 OF 2009 Between: K.V.Shakunthalamma and others ..... PETITIONERS AND K.Padmavathi and another .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5428 OF 2009 ORDER : The revision petitioners are the defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.11 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. They filed I.A.No.270 of 2009 with a prayer to recall PW-1 for further cross examination. The said application was dismissed by the Court below observing as under: “On perusal of the entire material on record I am of the opinion that this cannot be allowed on the following reasons: The memo filed by the 3rd defendant dated 10.8.09 for cause production of photos and negatives pertaining to the attendance of the defendants 1 to 5 and their father on the date of the alleged marriage of the 1st plaintiff dated 30-5-90 and the C.C. of FIR and withdrawal orders of the complaint given to I town P.S., Hindupur by PW1 against the defendants 1 to 5 and late Chalapathi Rao was rejected by this Court. Since the documents were sought production by the 3rd defendant in the suit are not placed before the Court, the question of recalling PW1 for further cross- examination does not arise. Therefore, have come to conclusion that this petition is liable to be dismissed and this point is decided against the petitioners.” Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the material available on record, I do not find any justifiable reason to hold that the order under revision suffers from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. It is clear from the reasons assigned that the Court below has exercised its discretion on proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. Such an order warrants no interference in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 13.11.2009 Ivd