The right to cross-examine is a substantive right that cannot be forfeited on mere technicalities, as its denial affects principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.Nos.788, 789 and 787 of 2018 in O.S.No.1588 of 2009 on the file of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard Sri Mohammad Rafee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Tejas, learned counsel representing Sri Naga Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The I.A.No.788 of 2018 is filed to recall the order dated 19.09.2018 and to set-aside the order of forfeiting the right of cross-examination of DW-1 and I.A.No.787 of 2018 is filed to reopen the matter for the purpose of cross-examination of DW-1 and I.A.No.789 of 2018 is filed to recall the DW-1 for the purpose of cross-examination of DW-1. As the three applications are arising out of the same suit, the I.A.Nos.787 and 788 of 2018 were ordered to be closed in view of the order passed in I.A.No.789 of 2018. Therefore, the C.R.P.No.7360 of 2018 would be the leading case which is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.789 of 2018 in O.S.No.1588 of 2009 and the result of remaining two petitions depends upon the result of this present petition.

4. The C.R.P.No.7360 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff in the suit wherein the said suit was filed for mandatory injunction against the defendants in respect of removal of manhole.

5. During the pendency of the suit, when the matter was posted for cross-examination of DW-1, it is reported that despite granting sufficient time, the plaintiff did not choose to cross- examine the DW-1. Accordingly, the cross-examination of DW-1 was closed. Immediately thereafter, the present I.A. was filed contending that on 19.09.2018, the suit was posted for cross-examination of DW-1 along with O.S.No.4516 of 2008. In the said suit, the matter was for continuation of cross-examination of DW-1, and the DW-1 was partly cross-examined by his counsel till 2.00 p.m. Thereafter, the matter was passed over for further continuation of the cross-examination of DW-1 along with the cross-examination of DW-1 in the above suit as the witness in both the cases are same.

6. The petitioner therein and plaintiff in the main suit contended that his counsel was held up in Ranga Reddy District Court, as such the petitioner also could not appear when the matter was called and as the plaintiff also could not appear as he was unwell and was hospitalized for a long time and had undergone Cardiovascular procedure, he was advised by the Doctors to take rest to recover his health, as such he could not appear before the learned trial Court. He further contended that the learned trial Court forfeited his right of further cross- examination and posted the matter for arguments without providing any opportunity. Hence, prayed this Court to allow the revision petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned trial Court.

7. Respondent No.3/defendant filed a counter affidavit denying all the allegations, averments, and contentions made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. It was further contended that the learned trial Court had partly heard the arguments of his counsel on 26.09.2018 and thereafter posted the matter for further arguments. But, the petitioner filed the present applications on 03.10.2018. Though the matter was posted for cross-examination, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the learned trial Court had entrusted the said cross-examination to an Advocate Commissione