JUDGMENT G.V. SEETHAPATHY, J. 1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 10-02-2012 in I.A.No.71 of 2012 in O.S.No.67 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for recall of PW.1 for further cross-examination, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the records. 3. The respondent herein filed the suit for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale. The petitioner herein filed written statement contesting the suit. After settlement of issues, the trial of the suit has been commenced and the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and he was cross-examined also. Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant filed an application I.A.No.1149 of 2011 for recall of PW.1 for further cross-examination on the ground that certain aspects were left over and PW.1 needs to be cross-examined regarding the same. The said application was dismissed mainly on the ground that the defendant failed to disclose in the affidavit as to what those aspects are that were omitted in the initial cross-examination. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22-09-2011, the defendant filed C.R.P.No.4914 of 2011 and this Court by order dated 25-11-2011 while dismissing the C.R.P. however granted liberty to the defendant to make a fresh application setting out the aspects on which PW.1 has to be further cross-examined. Thereupon, the defendant filed the present application in I.A.No.71 of 2012 for recall of PW.1 for further cross-examination. The said application was again dismissed by the trial court by the impugned order observing that the defendant failed to furnish details of the proposed cross-examination in the affidavit filed in support thereof even in the present application. 4. A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the present application would show that the defendant has stated that PW.1 for the first time in his evidence in chief-examination deposed about the aspects like delivery of possession, permission to effect repairs to the schedule property and particulars thereof and there was no reference in the pleading to the said aspects and, therefore, PW.1 needs to be further cross-examined regarding the same. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner/defendant has not set out the aspects of proposed cross-examination at all in the affidavit while filing the fresh application, pursuant to the liberty granted to her by this Court. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner/defendant has not set out the aspects of proposed cross-examination at all in the affidavit while filing the fresh application, pursuant to the liberty granted to her by this Court. The petitioner/defendant cannot be expected to reveal the exact questions that would be put to PW.1 in the cross-examination in advance, as the same would defeat the very purpose of cross-examination inasmuch as the petitioner/defendant has sufficiently indicated the areas pertaining to which she proposed to further examine PW.1. There has been sufficient compliance with the earlier order passed by this Court while granting the liberty to file fresh application. The impugned order dismissing the application for recall of PW.1 is, therefore, unsustainable and is accordingly, set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.71 of 2011 stands allowed and PW.1 is permitted to be recalled for further cross-examination. The petitioner/defendant shall, however, complete the cross-examination of PW.1 on the date fixed by the court below without seeking any further adjournment. 5. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2008, the trial court is directed to dispose of the same at an early date, preferably within a period of six months. 6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs.