This civil revision petition challenged the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram's orders rejecting applications to recall a witness under Order 18 Rule 7 CPC and reopen evidence. The High Court held the trial court correctly refused the request due to the lapse of time and lack of specific grounds.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE (I
/ (I
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CRP No. 3269 OF 2023 & CRP No.327Q of 9()7!i
CRP No. 3269 of 2023
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.
Between:
...Petitioner
AND
...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 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.
CRP No. 3270 of 2023
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.
Between:
East Godavari District)
...Petitioner
AND
Dr.B.R.Ambedkar konaseema District, (old East Godavari District)
...Respondents
V
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.
Counsel for the Petitioners :SRI TATA SINGAIAH GOUD
Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3269 & 3270 OF 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:-
Heard Sri Tata Singaiah Goud, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
- 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. Inthesaidsuit the petitioners filed l.A.No.427 of 2021 under Order18Rule7 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 recallofP.W.l. Both the applications have been rejected by the learnedCourt by order of same date dated 21.09.2023 by similar order,but passed separately on the said applications.
- 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.
- 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 furtherevidence and on closure of evidence of the plaintiffs on behalfofthe
s.;
2
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, wasnotmade clear in the application, which therefore was vagueand the application was a devise to linger on the proceedingsofthesuit of the year 2016.
- 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 recallofP.W.1.
1 I
3
- From perusal of the applications filed by the petitioners before the learned Court there is no suchmentionof the facts, as has been submitted before this Courtandnarrated in the memo. No such ground was taken before the learned Court. Perusal of the affidavit in support of the applicationfiled before the Court, shows that it was filed as accordingto the petitioners, they did not cross examine the plaintiffon 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 notonthe ground, for the first time raised before this Court.
- Consequently, the learned Court is correct in making the observation that the petitioners have notdisclosed on what important aspects they wanted to further cross examine P.W. 1.
- 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 2021and2022 respectively. In between, the petitioners filed 2 more applications, but any application for recall of thewitnessP.W.l or to reopen the proceedings for that purpose, werenot filed.
\
4
Consequently, I further find that the learned Court is justified in observing that the endeavor of the petitioners/defendantsinthe suit, is to delay the proceedings in the O.S.No.79 of 2016.
- 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 callsforno interference.
- Both the revision petitions are dismissed at the
admission stage.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
SDI- B. PRASADA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
/
//TRUE COPY//
CL
SECTION OFFICER
To,
Trt PRK r\ /\p- W
HIGH COURT
DATED:20/12/2023
T--
COMMON JUDGMENT
CRP.Nos.3269 & 3270 of 2023
DISMISSING THE CRPS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere under Article 227 CPC with the trial court's refusal to recall a witness due to lack of sufficient grounds and delay.
Whether a party has a vested right to recall and re-examine a witness after cross-examination is concluded.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Indugolugunta Pothula Srinivasarao
Indugula Girija Kumari
Bokka Venkata Ramadevi
Bokka Vishnu Veera Brahmayya
Ravi Nath Tilhari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
