Point of Law: There is no infirmity or illegality in the order under challenge.

ORDER :

1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners/defendant Nos. 53 and 54, challenging the order, dated 02.03.2020, passed in I.A. No. 27 of 2020 in O.S. No. 240 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, whereby, the petition filed by the petitioners herein under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to recall PW-1 to face cross-examination by defendant Nos. 53 and 54 the petitioners herein, was dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos. 53 and 54 would contend that the Court below without framing additional issues on their additional written statement proceeded further on the issues framed before the impleadment of the petitioner herein. The Court below failed to appreciate that the plaintiff sought for partition of 7/308th share without seeking for separate possession of his share and therefore the suit is not maintainable. The Court below erred in not observing that the plaintiffs are negligent in prosecuting the case though filed in the year 2006. The order of the Court below impugned herein is curtailing their right at threshold and causing great hardship to them. Hence, cross-examination of the PW-1 is essential to prove their claim but the Court below erroneously dismissed the subject interlocutory application negating the relief claimed by them.

4. A perusal of the order impugned herein would show that the suit was posted on 17.02.2020 for further evidence of the petitioners herein to cross-examine PW-1 but in their affidavit, there is no specific mention of any reason why they failed to cross-examine PW-1 in the earlier occasions. Though the defendants themselves impleaded in the suit long back and did not choose to file written statement early. Recently they chose to cross-examine the PW-1 after a lapse of three years of their impleadment in the suit which clearly shows that the petitioners, without any reason, intentionally protracted the matter. The suit is of the year 2006. The petitioners have not shown any cogent and convincing reasons to grant relief as sought for. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order under challenge. For this Court, there is nothing to interfere with the order impugned herein. Therefore, Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

5. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.