ORDER : 1. The respondents 1 and 2 had filed O.S.No.149 of 2009, before the I Additional District Judge, Guntur, for partition of Ac.1.49 cents of land in D.No.232 and Ac.1.55 cents of land in D.No.153/1B of Undavalli Village, Tadepalli Mandal. The contention of the respondents 1 and 2 is that this property which was originally owned by late Sri A.V.N. Rao, had fallen to the share of the 3 rd respondent and the husband of 1 st respondent herein. The further case was that though the husband of the 1 st respondent had ½ share in the said property the 3 rd respondent was claiming that the entire property belonged to him. 2. It appears that the respondents 1 and 2 had arrayed all the children of late Sri A.V.N. Rao as parties to ensure that all his descendants are parties to the suit and consequently, any decision that would be given in the suit. The petitioner herein who is a daughter-in-law of late Sri AVN. Rao was arrayed as defendant No.7. Though the suit was in relation to the properties in Undavalli Village, the petitioner, in her written statement, stated that there was a certain interchange of lands between the husband of the 1 st respondent and herself in relation to land in R.S.No.338 and R.S.No.342/B of Rayapudi Village. It was further contended that this was evidenced by a document, dated 31.10.1987. 3. The 1 st respondent had examined herself as P.W.1. The cross examination of P.W.1 was conducted by the learned counsel appearing for the defendants 1 to 4 in the suit. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had informed the Court that the cross examination conducted on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 was being adopted by the petitioner herein. The same was recorded by the Court. 4. The cross examination of P.W.1 was completed on 29.10.2018. It appears that on account of the orders of this Court in C.R.P.No.3140 of 2019, the trial in the matter was stayed from 2019 till 26.07.2024. Thereafter, the case was taken up on 30.12.2024, when the petitioner changed her counsel and a fresh vakalat was filed on behalf of the petitioner, before the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, before the trial Court participated in the trial when the suit was taken up on 07.03.2025, 13.03.2025, 29.04.2025, 20.06.2025, 04.08.2025, 14.08.2025, 20.08.2025, 22.08.2025 and 25.09.2025. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, before the trial Court participated in the trial when the suit was taken up on 07.03.2025, 13.03.2025, 29.04.2025, 20.06.2025, 04.08.2025, 14.08.2025, 20.08.2025, 22.08.2025 and 25.09.2025. It may be noted that the docket proceedings show that the evidence for the petitioner was to commence on 20.08.2025. However, there was no apperance on her behalf on 20.08.2025, 22.08.2025 and 25.08.2025. On account of the absence of the petitioner, the trial Court which had earlier levied costs had closed the evidence of the petitioner. 5. After the closure of the evidence, the petitioner moved I.A.No.884 and 885 of 2023 seeking recall of P.W.1, for cross examination, and for reopening the evidence on the plaintiffs’ side. The contention of the petitioner, in these applications, was that the advocate who was representing her earlier had not cross examined P.W.1 and had merely adopted the cross examination conducted on behalf of defendants 1 and 4. She would contend that after changing the counsel, a review of the evidence showed that her case had not been properly put to P.W.1 and the same would damage the claim and interest of the petitioner. 6. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted these applications on the ground that the petitioner had been given adequate opportunity to cross examine P.W.1 and that the ground of change of advocate can never be an adequate ground for recalling the witness. 7. The trial Court accepted the said contentions of the respondents 1 and 2 and dismissed the applications, by way of a common order, dated 06.10.2025. 8. Aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petitions. As both these petitions relate to the same common order, they are being disposed of by way of this common order. 9. Heard Sri N. Sri Ram Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sai Saran Chodisetty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. Sri N. Sri Ram Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the primary case of the petitioner was that the lands in Rayapudi Village were exchanged between the husband of the 1 st respondent and the petitioner, by way of a document, dated 31.10.1987, and the 1 st respondent, while being examined as P.W.1, had denied the existence of such a document. He would submit that P.W.1 has not been properly cross examined on this issue and that the version of the petitioner that such a document exists and that the said document was the basis on which the land was allotted to the husband of the 1 st respondent as well as the petitioner, could not be made out by cross examining the P.W.1. 11. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 and more specifically the cross examination of P.W.1 on behalf of defendants 1 to 4 would show that a suggestion was made to P.W.1 that the allotment of land, to the members of the family of late Sri A.V.N. Rao, in relation to Rayapudi Village was on the basis of the partition list of 31.10.1987. This suggestion was denied by P.W.1 who went on to state that there is no such document. Since the necessary suggestion has already been made in the cross examination and it was adopted by the petitioner, the same would naturally benefit the petitioner also. 12. The evidence of P.W.1 was completed on 29.10.2018. Though there was a stay of further proceedings up to July, 2024, the new counsel appointed by the petitioner had participated in the proceedings from 30.12.2024. In fact, the petitioner despite being given adequate opportunity, did not chose to examine herself as a witness. Apart from this, the counsel for the petitioner also did not chose to appear before the Court. In the circumstances, the rejection of the two petitions, cannot be treated to be an arbitrary exercise of discretion or a case where this Court is required to intervene. 13. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.