ORDER : P. SAM KOSHY, J. Since the issue arising out of the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same and the parties are also same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order. 2. Heard Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. Bala Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Revision Petition Nos.815 and 817 of 2025. 3. Civil Revision Petition No.815 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Order dated 27.02.2025 in I.A.No.143 of 2025 in O.S.No.81 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.129 of 2018) passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District; and Civil Revision Petition No.817 of 2025 is filed by the same petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Common Order dated 27.02.2025 in I.A.No.144 of 2025 in O.S.No.81 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.129 of 2018) passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short, ‘the impugned Common Order’). 4. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.815 of 2025 are discussed herein. 5. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 in the above suit, viz., O.S.No.81 of 2022. Initially, the plaintiffs filed the said suit under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to grant a decree for partition and separation possession of the suit schedule property by dividing it into equal shares in respect of the plaintiffs and defendants, and for other reliefs. 6. Pending the above suit, the petitioner herein (i.e., defendant No.1) has filed I.A.No.143 of 2025 in O.S.No.81 of 2022 under Order VIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to recall PW.3 and DW.2 for the purpose of cross-examination; and also I.A.No.144 of 2025 in O.S.No.81 of 2022 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to re-open the evidence of PW.3 and DW.2 for the purpose of cross-examination. 7. However, vide the impugned Common Order, the above I.A.s stood dismissed by the Trial Court. 8. Assailing the same, the Civil Revision Petition Nos.815 and 817 of 2025 are filed by the petitioner herein. 9. Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. 7. However, vide the impugned Common Order, the above I.A.s stood dismissed by the Trial Court. 8. Assailing the same, the Civil Revision Petition Nos.815 and 817 of 2025 are filed by the petitioner herein. 9. Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. Bala Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the present Civil Revision Petitions the petitioner is confining his prayer only to recall and reopen the evidence of DW.2. He further submitted that the chief-examination affidavit of DW.2 was filed only on 02.01.2025 and thereafter the matter was posted for cross-examination of DW.2 on 12.02.2025. He further submitted that on the said date, the petitioner’s counsel could not present himself before the Trial Court to conduct cross-examination of DW.2 as his father had expired on 08.02.2025. The petitioner herein also could not appear before the Trial Court on 12.02.2025 as he was suffering from ill-health. Therefore, the Trial Court, after having noted the said facts, closed the right of the petitioner herein to cross-examine DW.2 and posted the matter for trial, and fixed the case for final arguments on 26.03.2025. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the findings given by the Trial Court insofar as disbelieving the statement given by the counsel appearing before the Trial Court on affidavit that on account of the death of his father, the counsel could not appear before the Trial Court on 12.02.2025. Therefore, the stand taken by the Trial Court in dismissing the above I.A.s is too harsh and would be detrimental to the petitioner herein. 11. He further contended that there was no inordinate delay occurred on the part of the petitioner herein from the date on which the default arose, i.e., 12.02.2025 and the date on which they have moved the above applications for re-opening and recalling on 21.02.2025. He further contended that the Trial Court ought to have taken a more liberal and pragmatic view in the course of deciding the above applications and could have called upon DW.2 for cross-examination. He therefore prayed for setting aside of the impugned common order and allow the petitions. 12. He further contended that the Trial Court ought to have taken a more liberal and pragmatic view in the course of deciding the above applications and could have called upon DW.2 for cross-examination. He therefore prayed for setting aside of the impugned common order and allow the petitions. 12. Upon due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that though the petitioner (i.e., defendant No.1) has not produced any document in respect of death of father of the counsel, appearing on his behalf before the Trial Court, however there was a statement made on affidavit by the party in support of the same and there was no reason for disbelieving the said averment. Moreover, the statement made on affidavit by the party could have been verified from other sources as well. Another aspect which needs to be considered is that, there was no opposition on the said contention of the petitioner from the opposite side which should also have given sufficient indication of the averment made to be correct. 13. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned Common Order dated 27.02.2025 in I.A.No.143 of 2025 and I.A.No.144 of 2025 in O.S.No.81 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.129 of 2018) passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District, insofar as reopening and recalling of DW.2 is concerned, deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The Civil Revision Petition Nos.815 and 817 of 2025 accordingly stands allowed. 14. The Trial Court is directed to take up the matter for hearing on 26.03.2025, on which date the Trial Court shall give one more opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine DW.2. The Trial Court shall also fix a date of less than 10 days’ time commencing from 26.03.2025 to recall DW.2 for cross-examination on the specified date. The petitioner shall cross-examine the said witness on the said given date itself with no further adjournment permissible in this regard under any circumstances; and thereafter the Trial court shall proceed and decide the matter on its own merits and in accordance with law at the earliest. 15. No order as to costs. 16. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.