Common order :

1) These Revision Petitions are connected arising out of the same suit between the same parties and involve common facts and law. Hence the revision petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondents 1 and 2 herein are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.354 of 2006 on the file of the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Defendant No.2 (respondent No.1 herein) is the Managing Director of defendant No.3 (respondent No.2 herein) Company. Respondent No.3 herein viz., P.Surya Prakash, Company Secretary, is defendant No.1 in the suit.

3) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred by their status in the suit.

4) The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit bearing O.S.No.354 of 2006 claiming from the defendants Rs.20,00,000/- as damages for defamation alleging that the defendants made false allegations and claims against the plaintiff. The defendants 2 and 3 (Respondents 1 and 2) were set ex parte in the suit on 30-10-2006 and defendant No.1 (Respondent No.3 herein) was set ex parte on 30-11-2006.

5) I.A.No.3913 of 2006 was filed by the defendants 2 and 3 under Order 9, Rule 7

C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte order. The said I.A. was allowed on 30-11-2006 on condition to pay costs of Rs.500/-. Defendants 2 and 3 did not comply with the conditional order, hence the I.A. for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed by order dated 22-12-2006. These defendants filed another I.A.No.4642 of 2006 under Section 148 C.P.C., seeking extension of time for filing written statement. The said I.A. was dismissed on 22.12.2006. A revision petition C.R.P.No.3519 of 2007 preferred against the said order was dismissed by this Court on 28.12.2007. In the meanwhile, consequent upon the dismissal of the aforesaid I.As., the suit was posted for plaintiff’s evidence on 17-01-2007. On 17-01-2007, I.A.No.3913 of 2007 was closed for noncompliance of the conditional order. On the same day, the plaintiff filed his examination-in-chief and marked Exs.A1 to A11 documents. The case was adjourned on a couple of occasions on the ground that the aforesaid C.R.P. was pending in the High Court After it was brought to the notice of the lower Court that the C.R.P. was not even registered, the case was posted for judgment to 14-08-2007. In the meanwhile, stay was granted in the C.R.P. on 10-08-2007 and the matter was adjourned to 23-11-2007. Stay was vacated on 14-09-2007, hence the matter was again posted for judgment to 11-12-2007 on 29-11-2007. When the matter was kept reserved for judgment, defendants 2 and 3 filed the instant I.As. to reopen the case and permit them to cross-examine P.W.1. The said I.As., were allowed by the Court below by orders, dated 10-12-2009, which are impugned in these C.R.Ps.

6) Heard Sri.Y.Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sangeeta Bhaskar, learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 in the above C.R.Ps.

7) Sri Y. Ratnakar, learned counsel for the petitioner would challenge the orders on three grounds – (i) it is contended that the request of the defendants 2 and 3 to open the suit and to permit them to cross-examine the plaintiff filed under Order 18, Rule 17 is not maintainable. According to the counsel, under the said provision, the Court alone is competent to recall a witness and put questions to him in appropriate cases; therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned orders permitting the defendants 2 and 3 for cross-examining the plaintiff are without jurisdiction; (ii) the defendants 2 and 3 are not entitled for the discretionary relief. According to the learned counsel, these defendants abused the process of law and mislead the trial Court by falsely representing that the suit proceedings were stayed by the High Court, therefore their conduct should disentitle them for indulgence even for their participation in the suit; and (iii) in any event, the trial Court is not justified in