IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5921 of 2009 Between: K. Jagan Reddy .. Petitioner AND K. Bharathamma and 35 others (Respondents 8 to 35 are not necessary parties to this CRP) .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5921 of 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri N. Vijay, learned counsel representing Sri M.S. Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P. Laxma Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 7, whereas respondents 8 to 35 were stated to be not necessary parties to the present revision petition. I.A.No.522 of 2009 in O.S.No.41 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, was filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 thereof with a request to permit recall of first defendant for cross-examination by defendants 4, 5, 10, 11,14, 15 and 22 on the ground that such cross-examination was not done earlier and some relevant questions pertaining to the said defendants were not put earlier. The said petition was allowed by the trial Court on 29-10-2009 as counter was not filed. The grievance of the revision petitioner, who is the first defendant in the suit, is that in the absence of any valid reason furnished by the applicants, the trial Court should not have ordered the petition merely due to the absence of any counter and in the absence of any conflict of interest stated by the applicants between the defendants, the question of cross-examination of the first defendant by the other defendants does not arise. The revision petitioner suspected collusion of the applicants with the plaintiffs to help whom they wish to cross-examine DW.1. Irrespective of the other considerations, it is seen from the two word order in question that the merits of the request in the petition were not considered by the trial Court and straight away allowing the application due to the other party not filing a counter may not be indicative of application of the judicial mind by the trial Court before accepting the request. Under the circumstances, it will be but in the interests of justice to remit the matter back to the trial Court to provide an opportunity to the other parties in the suit other than the applicants to file their counters and to contest the application on which the trial Court has to decide the same on merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Accordingly, the impugned order in I.A.No.522 of 2009 in O.S.No.41 of 2005 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy is set aside and the said petition is remitted back to the trial Court with the above directions. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 31-12-2009 Ksn