HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.3667 OF 2010 DATE: 22.03.2011 BETWEEN: Kotti Sudhabala .. Petitioner AND Gadagottu Hanumasree and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.3667 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 05.07.2010 passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram in I.A.No.144 of 2010 (Old I.A.No.2261 of 2007) in O.S.No.1 of 2007. I have heard Sri G.Rama Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondents. In the course of trial before the learned Court below, the first respondent/plaintiff thought to examine Sri A.S.N.Murthy and another witness on her behalf on the ground that one of the witness i.e. A.S.N.Murthy is the scribe of the agreement to sell, basing on which the suit was filed, and that it was not necessary for her to examine herself as a witness. She also filed the chief examination affidavits of PWs.1 and 2 as witnesses. The witnesses were to be examined by a commissioner appointed by the Court for the said purpose and the commissioner refused to mark the documents through PW.1 on the ground he is not a party to the suit. Subsequently, the first respondent filed a petition under Order 18 Rule 3(A) read with 151 C.P.C. seeking to ratify the examination of PW.1-A.S.N.Murthy earlier to the petitioner. The said petition was allowed by the learned trial Court. Assailing the said order, the present revision petition has been filed on the ground that the order passed by the learned trial Court is not in accordance with law and it enables the first respondent/plaintiff to fill up the lacuna in the evidence. Following the judgment in GARIKAPATI KESAVA RAO v PRTHIPATI SRILAKSHMI[1] the learned trial Court construing the situation which arose out of the decision of the Court commissioner in not permitting the suit document and other documents to be marked through A.S.N.Murthy, the scribe of the agreement to sell, permitted the revision petitioner to be examined subsequent to her witnesses PWs.1 and 2. The learned trial Court also rightly held that even after examining PWs.1 and 2 also, the request of the first respondent can be considered and the examination of PWs.1 and 2 can be ratified. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not think that any prejudice will be caused to the revision petitioner on account of the order passed by the learned trial Court. I absolutely see no merit in the present revision petition and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Date:22.03.2011 _______________ R.KANTHA RAO,J kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.3667 OF 2010 DATE: 22.03.2011 [1] 2006(3)ALT 596