THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3755 AND 3769 OF 2010 DATED:19-11-2010. Between Islavath Krishna Naik … Petitioner And Palepu Venkata Subbaiah …Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.3755 AND 3769 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These revisions are directed against the orders, dated 30-03-2010 in I.A. Nos. 1217 and 1218 of 2008 respectively in O.S.No.275 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kadiri, Anantapur District, whereunder and whereby the applications filed to 1) recall the suit and 2) to recall P.W.2 for further cross-examination with regard to the execution of the suit document, were dismissed. 2. It is stated before the Court below that the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the lower Court has not cross- examined P.W.2 for the reason that when the witness was present, the counsel for the petitioner went outside to answer calls of nature and that without considering this aspect, the trial Court dismissed both the petitions. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that because the Court below insisted the party, the petitioner has formally put some questions and P.W.2 was not cross-examined by the counsel, that without giving reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.2, the matter was posted for arguments, and hence, he prays to set aside the order. 4. In spite of giving several opportunities, none appears for the respondent. 5. Right to cross-examination of a witness is an indispensable right of the defendant and that right is subjected to reasonable restrictions. If the petitioner is dragging on the matter without any justifiable reason in not cross-examining the witness, in such circumstance, the Court has no option except to close the evidence. On one occasion, the counsel for the petitioner went outside to answer calls of nature and in the mean time, the petitioner was directed to cross-examine the witness and accordingly, the petitioner cross-examined P.W.2. As a matter of fact, when the counsel is appearing, the trial Court ought not to have allowed him to put some questions. Therefore, it is not a case, where the petitioner has been wantonly taking several adjournments to cross-examine P.W.2. Considering the fact that on one occasion only, the counsel for the petitioner was absent, one more opportunity can be given to the counsel for the petitioner to cross-examine P.W.2. Hence, the impugned orders are set aside. Unless the case is reopened, question of cross-examination of P.W.2 does not arise. Hence, the petition to re-open the suit has to be allowed. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. The trial Court is directed to fix a date for cross-examination of P.W.2 and on such date, the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the trial Court shall cross-examine P.W.2 without taking any further adjournment. No order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:19.11.2010 Hsd