ORDER :

(B.S. Bhanumathi, J.)

These revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the respective orders dated 06.12.2022 in I.A. No.479 of 2022 in I.A. No.6 of 2022 and in I.A. No.478 of 2022 in O.S. No.271 of 2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Gajuwaka.

2. C.R.P. No.471 of 2023 is filed against the order dated 06.12.2022 dismissing the petition in I.A. No.479 of 2022 in I.A. No.6 of 0222 in O.S. No.271 of 2018 filed under Rule 9 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (`CPC') by the 1st defendant to restore the petition in I.A. No.6 of 2022 which was filed for recalling PW1 for further cross-examination.

3. C.R.P. No.458 of 2023 is filed against the order dt.06.12.2022 dismissing the petition in I.A. No.478 of 2022 in O.S. No.271 of 2018 filed under Rule 17 of Order XVIII CPC by the 1st defendant to recall PWs2 to 4 for their cross-examination.

4. The revision petitioner is the 1st defendant, Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 and 3 are the defendants 2 and 3 in the O.S. No.271 of 2018. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the revision petitioner/1st defendant and the respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3 for recovery of money on a promissory note stated to be executed by B.Rajendra Raju, who is the husband of the revision petitioner/1st defendant and the father of respondents 2 and 3/defendants 2 and 3.

5. In I.A. No.479 of 2022, the revision petitioner contended that I.A. No.6 of 2022 was filed as some more questions are to be asked to PW1 on crucial aspects, and the petition was posted to 12.07.2022 on which date the revision petitioner could not get ready due to old age ailments and was advised to take rest, and their counsel also was out of station and could not appear, but the petition was dismissed for default, and that there are no laches on the part of the revision petitioner. No counter was filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff, however, the trial court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the matter was posted from time to time on several occasions, and no evidence was placed to show that she suffered from any ill health and that the petitioner was not vigilant and negligent in appearing before the court through the counsel. Having aggrieved by the order, C.R.P. No.471 of 2023 is filed that the trial court did not give reasonable opportunity and appreciate the reasons stated in the affidavit.

6. In I.A. No.478 of 2022, the revision petitioner/1st defendant contended that the petition in I.A. No.6 of 2022 was posted to 14.06.2022 for filing counter and also for cross-examination of PWs2 to 4 and that the counsel for the petitioner represented to the court about I.A. No.6 of 2022 and therefore, requested for cross-examination of PWs2 to 4 along with PW1, but the court treated the cross-examination of PWs2 to 4 as `NIL' and therefore, it is necessary to recall PWs2 to 4. The 1st respondent/plaintiff did not file counter. However, the trial court dismissed the petition stating that the case was adjourned for cross-examination of PWs2 to 4 on costs as the suit was adjourned for their cross-examination on several occasions, and therefore, the trial court declined extension of further time for cross-examination of PWs2 to 4, and for the same reason, this petition was also dismissed observing that there are no bonafides and that the petitioner is negligent in conducting the suit. Having aggrieved by the same, the revision in C.R.P. No.458 of 2023 was filed.

7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner in both revisions submitted that the revision petitioner was very much ready to cross-examine PWs2 to 4, along with PW1, since the s