Dismissed

Mummidi Koteswara Rao, v. Kothani Veera Venkata Satya Appa Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC13 Feb 2024CRP/170/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed a civil revision petition filed to challenge an order rejecting a recall application for a witness. The apex held that the trial court did not err in exercising discretion to deny repeated recall attempts where no cogent reasons were provided and the witness had already been cross-examined by the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Mummidi Koteswara Rao, Vs Kothani… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 170 OF 2024

¶6

9n in fnrio® Constitution of India aggrieved by the^orderdated fh of 2023 in O.S.No.267 of 2015 on the file of the^Courtof the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

¶7

Between:

¶8

S/°„Pattabhi Ramayya, Aged 56 years, Proprietor,

¶9

Kakfnada^^^ Company, D.No.65-6-19, Tyagaraju Street Mehar Nagar,

¶10

1. Mummidi Papa Ratnam, W/o. Mummidi Koteswara Rao, Aged 42 years House wife, D.No.65-6-19, Tyagaraju Street, Mehar Nagar, Kaldnada ^

¶11

...Petitioners/petitioners

¶12

AND

¶13

¶14

Venkata Satya Appa Rao, S/o. Bangarayya, aged 48 years

¶15

Di^hct village, U.Kothapalli Mandal, Pithapuram, East^Godavari

¶16

^ D Kumar, S/o. Surya Prasad, aged 38 years, H.No.1-2 Siddarda Nagar, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada.

¶17

...Respondents/Respondents

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶19

Petition under Section 151 of CPC QtatoH in thn r-t ^ ... P^oying that in the circumstances ''I®'' therewith, the High Court may be pleased to dispense in 0,S Z 2?7 of on"f ""T *'’? dt.20-10-2023 in I.A.No.1092^of2023 No.267 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. SRI ATCHYUT

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

¶22

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

¶24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶25

APHC0I0035832024

¶26

[ WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF 3299] FEBRUARY

¶27

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶29

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 170 OF 2024

¶30

Between:

¶31

MUMMIDI KOTESWARA RAO, AND OTHERS

¶32

...PETITIONER(S)

¶33

AND

¶34

KOTHANI VEERA VENKATA SATYA APPA RAO AND OTHERS

¶35

...RESPONDENT(S)

¶36

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. M SRI ATCHYUT

¶37

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶38

The Court made the following:

¶39

RNT. J 2 CRP No. 170 of 2024

¶40

¶41

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 170 of 2024

¶42

JUDGMENT:

¶43

Heard Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the petitioners. This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners who are the defendants in O.S.No.267 of 2015 pending in the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, challenging the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.l092 of 2023 in O.S.No.267 of 2015 which was filed for recall of PW 1 for further cross-examination.

¶44

The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that PW 1 was cross-examined by the petitioners/defendant^s. The PW1 was also present on several occasions, but in spite^{thereofthedefendants} failed to cross-examine him. Consequently, the cross-examination of PW¹ was closed. Further, the petitioners, previously, also,^filed I.A.No.37 of 2022 for the recall of PW 1, which was allowed by the trial Court and they further crossexamined PW 1. The case was posted for further evidence of plaintiff's side. The present application was filed for recall of PW 1 again for further crossexamination. The trial Court has recorded that the petitioners are not diligent in pursuing their case and their conduct shows that they are intentionally dragging on the case. The suit is for specific performance of recovery of advance amount of sale agreement.

¶45

RNl, 'J CRP No. 170 of 2024

¶46

The learned trial Court has observed that the object of the provision under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is not intended to fill up the lacunae and that the petitioners failed to put forth any cogent reason to recall PW 1 again.

¶47

Undisputedly, the petitioners' previous LA.No.37/2022^wasallowed. PW 1 was recalled for further cross-examination and the defendants crossexamined him. Repeated applications for recall of the^{samewitnessforfurther} cross-examination would not be maintainable, particularly, when in the present case the Court did not find any cogent reasons for such^recall.It cannot be that a witness be recalled on mere asking of the applicant^orat his convenience again and again for further cross-examination to fill the lacuna, if any. The discretion has been rightly exercised by the learned trial Court in rejecting the petitioners' application.

¶48

I do not find any illegally in the order of the learned trial Court. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶49

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

¶50

SD/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District (with records if any) 2. One CC to Sri M Sri Atchyut, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Three CD Copies sree

•>

HIGH COURT

DATED: 14/02/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.170 of 2024 .<br>

¶60

S’ Copies
IS Istllf
D5U

¶61

OF
f/Xao 2 <1 MAY im COm
SPATCH^^^

¶62

DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS

Mummidi Koteswara Rao, v. Kothani Veera Venkata Satya Appa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mummidi Koteswara Rao, v. Kothani Veera Venkata Satya Appa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Goturi Radha, Chittoor District and 3 Others Vs Prl. Secretary, Stamps and Registration Dept., Hyd and 3 Others

Anne Sivarama Prasad, Krishna Dist Vs Prl Secy, Revenue Dept, Hyderabad and 3 Others

Partner, M/S. Krishna Sai Real Estates, Vijayawada Vs Secretary, Road Transport and Highways, and 4 Others

Appala Sudhakara Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

A.S.Gurappa, Vs The Sub Registrar

Suthapalli Lakshmi Narayana Rao Vs Yeluripati Surya Kumari