IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4235 of 2009 Between: P. Amarendra Reddy ..... PETITIONER AND C. Pratap Reddy and others ..... RESPONDENTS ORDER: The matter is coming up for admission. The CRP is filed against an order made in I.A.No.804 of 2009 in O.S.No.250 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. 2. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool while allowing the application I.A.No.804 of 2009 in O.S.No.250 of 2006 observed as under: “As argued for the petitioners, if they want to fill up the lacunas in the evidence of PW-1 they would have examined the third petitioner as a witness subsequent to the evidence of PW-1. So, it cannot be said that to fill up the lacunas the third plaintiff wants to give evidence. On the ground that the petitioners have not obtained permission to examine third plaintiff at a later stage prior to the examination of PW2, the third petitioner who is the plaintiff cannot be denied the opportunity of giving evidence, more so when no prejudice would be caused to the respondent. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the above reasons in the interest of justice I find that it is just and proper to permit the third petitioner to give evidence as a witness. Hence, this petition is allowed”. 3. In the light of the reasons recorded by the learned Senior Civil Judge, the discretion had been rightly exercised by the learned Senior Civil Judge while allowing the application. Normally such discretionary orders had not to be interfered with, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. Accordingly, the CRP shall stand dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ___________________ P.S. NARAYANA, J October 27, 2009. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S. NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4235 of 2009 October 27, 2009