THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.189 of 2011 Date:15.04.2011 Between: Kuna Satyavathi ..... Petitioner AND Chintada Ashok Kumar and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nooka Jagannadham Counsel for Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of the order dated 28.07.2010 in I.A.No.535 of 2010 in O.S.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. Despite service of notice on respondent No.1 – plaintiff, there is no appearance on his behalf. I have heard Sri Nooka Jagannadham, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is defendant No.2 in O.S.No.31 of 2009 filed by respondent No.1 - plaintiff for recovery of certain amount on a promissory note. During the course of examination of respondent No.1 – plaintiff as P.W.1, the petitioner – defendant No.2 was not ready to cross-examine P.W.1. Therefore, the petitioner’s right to cross-examine P.W.1 was forfeited. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.A.No.535 of 2010 in O.S.No.31 of 2009 for recalling P.W.1 for cross-examining him. The said application having been dismissed by the Court below, the present C.R.P. is filed. Though the order passed by the Court below rejecting the petitioner’s application has no clarity at all, what could be deciphered therefrom is that the ground on which the petitioner’s application was rejected was that the petitioner is supporting respondent No.1 - plaintiff and therefore, there is no need for permitting him to cross-examine respondent No.1. In my opinion, the only issue that required to be considered was whether the petitioner offered satisfactory explanation for not cross-examining respondent No.1. The Court below has gone beyond this point and ventured to analyse the evidence and the respective stands of the parties on merits. The procedure adopted by the Court below is not germane for consideration of the application in question. By giving one chance to the petitioner for recalling P.W.1 for cross-examination, no prejudice would be caused to respondent No.1. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order under revision suffers from error of jurisdiction and the same is set aside. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. I.A.No.535 of 2010 in O.S.No.31 of 2009 is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) payable to respondent No.1 - plaintiff. The Court below is directed to complete the trial, after recalling P.W.1 for cross- examination by the petitioner – defendant No.2, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to allowing the C.R.P., C.R.P.M.P.No.268 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15th April, 2011 GHN