Dismissed

Pothula Srinivasarao v. Bokka Venkata Ramadevi

Andhra Pradesh HC20 Dec 2023CRP/3269/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses two civil revision petitions filed under Article 227 challenging the rejection of applications for recalling a witness in an ongoing civil suit. The Court held that recalling a witness is not a vested right and the lower court correctly refused the application due to the lack of specific grounds and undue delay. No interference is warranted in the exercise of judicial discr

What did the court decide?

Both Civil Revision Petitions (CRP Nos. 3269 & 3270 of 2023) were dismissed at the admission stage. No order as to costs.

Pothula Srinivasarao Vs Bokka Venkata… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE (I

¶2

/ (I

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶5

CRP No. 3269 OF 2023 & CRP No.327Q of 9()7!i

¶6

CRP No. 3269 of 2023

¶7

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated 21.09.2023 in I.A. No. 840/2021 i n O.S.No.79/2016, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Indugolugunta,Pothula Srinivasarao,KondukuduruS/o lateVillage,Kutumbarao,Inavilii Mandal,hindu InamDr.B.R.Ambedkar43 years, konaseema District, (old East Godavari District)

¶10

Induguia Girija Kumari, W/o Chandrasekhararao, hindu 71 years Godavah WstrTcT'^'^''^^'^^"^’ konaseema District, (old^East

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AND

¶13

Bokka Venkata Ramadevi, W/o Vishnu Veerabrahmayya Hindu 58 vears B.R.Ambedkar konasUa

¶14

...Respondents

¶15

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶16

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to sfay of all further proceedings ini Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram in O.S.No.79/2016, dated 21.09.2023 pending disposal of the C.R.P.

¶17

CRP No. 3270 of 2023

¶18

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Dismissal Order dated 21.09.2023 in I.A. No. 427/2021 in O.S.No.79/2016, passed by the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram.

¶19

Between:

¶20

Pothula Srinivasarao, S/o late Kutumbarao, hindu, Inam 43 vears l.'JJ^^^olugunta, Kondukuduru Village, Inavilii Mandal, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar konaseema District, (old East Godavari District)

¶21

Induguia Girija Kumari, W/o Chandrasekhararao, hindu, 71 years.y I .T.R Nagar, Mummidivaram, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar konaseema District (old

¶22

East Godavari District)

¶23

...Petitioner

¶24

AND

¶25

Bokka Venkata Ramadevi, W/o Vishnu Veerabrahmayya, Hindu 58 Ainavilli Mandal,

¶26

Dr.B.R.Ambedkar konaseema District, (old East Godavari District)

¶27

Bokka Vishnu Veera Brahmayya, S/o Krishnayya, hindu, 62 years Sankarayagudem, H/o Krapa, Ainavilla Mandal. Dr.B.R Ambedkar konaseema District, (old East Godavari District

...Respondents

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram in O.S.No.79/2016, dated 21.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioners :SRI TATA SINGAIAH GOUD

¶33

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶34

The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT

¶35

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶36

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3269 & 3270 OF 2023

¶37

COMMON JUDGMENT:-

¶38

Heard Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

¶39

The petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.79 of 2016 pending in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram filed by the respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs. In^thesaidsuit the petitioners filed l.A.No.427 of 2021 under Order^18Rule7 C.P.C r/w Section 151 C.P.C to recall P.W. 1 for further cross-examination. I.A.No.840 of 2020 was also filed to reopen the plaintiffs side evidence for the purpose of recall^ofP.W.l. Both the applications have been rejected by the learned^Court by order of same date dated 21.09.2023 by similar order,^but passed separately on the said applications.

¶40

Challenging the order passed in l.A.No.840 of 2020, C.R.P.No.3269 of 2023 is filed and challenging the order passed in I.A.No.427 of 2021, C.R.P.No.3270 of 2023 is filed.

¶41

The aforesaid applications have been rejected. considering that the P.W.l was cross examined in the year 2017. Subsequently the matter was posted for further^evidence and on closure of evidence of the plaintiffs on behalf^ofthe

¶42

s.;

¶43

¶44

defendant D.W. 1 was examined and when the matter was posted for further evidence a petition under Order 16 Rule 1 C.P.C was filed which was allowed and the Village Revenue Officer (VRO) was examined as D.W.l. Subsequently another I.A.No.416 of 2022 was filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner which was rejected. 5. Learned Court has observed that P.W.l was cross examined at length and cross-examination was completed on 19.12.2017. The present application was filed after almost 5 years. The averments of the application also did not disclose, on what aspect the petitioner wanted to further cross-examine P.W. 1. The petitioners stated only that they had forgotten some important aspects, but what were those aspects, was^notmade clear in the application, which therefore was vague^and the application was a devise to linger on the proceedings^ofthesuit of the year 2016.

¶45

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiff burnt the house of the defendant/petitioners, with respect to which the criminal case was lodged. Subsequently the proceedings of that case were stayed in W.P.No.1051 of 2022 vide order dated 28.01.2022. To elicit the said fact the petitioners filed the petition to reopen and for recall^ofP.W.1.

¶46

1 I

¶47

¶48

From perusal of the applications filed by the petitioners before the learned Court there is no such^mentionof the facts, as has been submitted before this Court^andnarrated in the memo. No such ground was taken before the learned Court. Perusal of the affidavit in support of the application^filed before the Court, shows that it was filed as according^to the petitioners, they did not cross examine the plaintiff^on some important aspects. Those, aspects were not disclosed in the affidavits filed before the learned Court. In the present revision. the petitioners cannot be permitted to take new factual ground. which was not raised before the learned Court. The legality of the order is to be tested on the ground taken and not^onthe ground, for the first time raised before this Court.

¶49

Consequently, the learned Court is correct in making the observation that the petitioners have not^disclosed on what important aspects they wanted to further cross examine P.W. 1.

¶50

The impugned order clearly demonstrates that the cross-examination of P.W.l was completed in the year 2017. The present applications were filed in the years 2021^and2022 respectively. In between, the petitioners filed 2 more applications, but any application for recall of the^witnessP.W.l or to reopen the proceedings for that purpose, were^not filed.

¶51

¶52

¶53

Consequently, I further find that the learned Court is justified in observing that the endeavor of the petitioners/defendants^inthe suit, is to delay the proceedings in the O.S.No.79 of 2016.

¶54

Any party to the suit has no vested right to recall and re-examine a witness. Order 18 Rule 7 C.P.C is an enabling provision for the Court. The exercise of discretion by the learned Court under the circumstances is judicious which calls^forno interference.

¶55

1 do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Court. No case is made out for interference in the exercise of the jurisdiction under^Article227 of the Constitution of India.

¶56

Both the revision petitions are dismissed at the

¶57

admission stage.

¶58

No order as to costs.

¶59

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

¶60

SDI- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.

¶67

One CC to Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD copies.

Trt PRK r\ /\p- W

HIGH COURT

DATED:20/12/2023

T--

COMMON JUDGMENT

CRP.Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2023

¶74

DISMISSING THE CRPS

Pothula Srinivasarao v. Bokka Venkata Ramadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pothula Srinivasarao v. Bokka Venkata Ramadevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalimkota Kannyamma Vs Adduri Veera Venkata Satyanarayanaraju

M/S Pch Life Style Private Limited Vs Penumatsa Rama Subrahmanyam Raju

Kothhapalli Savitri Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Pothula Srinivasarao Vs Bokka Venkata Ramadevi

Chilaka Sesharatnam at Kakarla Sesharatnam Vs Thahsildar

Malla Samba Siva Rao, Vs The Tahasildar