Dismissed¶31

Potnuru Hari Prasad v. Korada Venkata Santharao

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Jan 2026CRP/2844/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AP High Court (Amaravati), Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad; Civil Revision Petition No. 2844/2025, decided 06-01-2026; revision against order dt. 10-09-2025 of Civil Judge (JD), Narasannapeta in I.A.No.110/2023 in O.S.No.5/2020 (money suit, claim Rs.7,86,650/-); recall/reinstatement of plaintiff's chief evidence eschewed for non-appearance to cross-examination on 24-11-2022; viral fever as reason beyond control; defendant's serial adjournments for cross-examination; CRP dismissed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

There is no infirmity in the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasannapeta in I.A.No.110/2023 in O.S.No.5/2020. ¶31

Potnuru Hari Prasad Vs Korada Venkata Santharao — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

APHC010534022025

¶3

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

¶4

[3328]

¶5

TUESDAY,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2844/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

POTNURU HARI PRASAD, S/O KANAKAYYA, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS, R/O FLAT NO. 201, D.V.K. SURYA HEIGHTS, DOORNO. 12/177, INDIRANAGAR, NARASANNAPETA TOWN AND MANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

KORADA VENKATA SANTHARAO, S/O LATE CHIRANJEEVULU, AGED 56 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 9-337/2, TIRUMALA VEEDHI, NARASANNAPETA TOWN ANDMANDAL, SRIKAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶16

1.GUMMADAVALLI VAMSI KUMAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶18

¶19

The Court made the following:

¶20

¶21

ORAL ORDER:

¶22

Heard Sri Gummadavalli Vamsi Kumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶23

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasannapeta in I.A.No.110/2023 in O.S.No.5/2020.

¶24

The facts necessary for this C.R.P. are that the Respondent herein is the Plaintiff, who filed a Money Suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,86,650/against the sole Defendant, who is the Revision Petitioner herein. The Plaintiff has led the chief evidence on 10.02.2021 and cross-examination by the Defendant’s Counsel was due. The Suit had undergone several adjournments for about one and a half years at the behest of the Defendant for the purpose of the cross-examination. When the Suit was listed for crossexamining the Plaintiff by the Defendant, the Plaintiff could not appear on 24.11.2022. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), having noted the same, had eschewed the chief evidence of the Plaintiff.

¶25

Thereafter, the Plaintiff filed I.A.No.110/2023 seeking recall of the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasannapeta dated 24.11.2022 and to take on record the evidence of the Plaintiff. It is stated in the Affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.110/2023 that the reason for his absence was beyond his control, inasmuch as the Plaintiff had suffered from viral fever during the relevant period. The relevant portion of the Affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.110/2023 is usefully extracted hereunder:

¶26

“I submit that I filed the above suit against the defendant for recovery of amount. I submit that I filed my chief affidavit on 10.2.2021 before this Honourable court and marked exhibits A.1 and 2 on my side to prove my case and posted for cross examination of p.w.1 by the respondent/defendant, even one year 10 months have elapsed the respondent/defendant did not come forward to cross examine to me. The respondent have taken several adjournments for cross examination to me by saying several reasons . Unfortunately I got viral fever on 20.11.2022 and I am unable to move from the bed and I unable to consult to my counsel and

¶27

¶28

due to heavy fever I have forgotten my date of adjournment. So that I could not attend before this Honourable court on 24.11.2022 due to the above said reason. On that day 24.11.2022 this Honourable court called the matter and passed order by eschew my chief evidence (P.W.1).”

¶29

The above extract would clearly indicate that the Defendant had failed to cross examine the Plaintiff on several occasions after the Plaintiff filed the Chief Examination Affidavit on 10.02.2021. The above extract would also indicate that the Plaintiff suffered from viral fever from 20.11.2022, which was the reason for his inability to attend the Court on 24.11.2022. The Defendant/Petitioner filed Counter Affidavit opposing the same. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasannapeta, after having considered the submissions from both sides, was pleased to allow I.A.No.110/2023 vide Order dated 10.09.2025.

¶30

This Court has sifted through the Affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.110/2023 and also paras 6 & 7 of Impugned Order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) dated 10.09.2025. This Court noticed that on several occasions, the Defendant had failed to cross examine the Plaintiff and that it was only on one occasion, the Plaintiff could not subject himself for cross-examination for the reasons beyond his control, inasmuch as the Plaintiff was suffering from viral fever.

¶31

In this view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the Order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Narasannapeta in I.A.No.110/2023 in O.S.No.5/2020. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. No order as to costs.

¶32

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

¶33

¶34

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

¶35

Dt: 06.01.2026

¶36

Vns

Potnuru Hari Prasad v. Korada Venkata Santharao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Potnuru Hari Prasad v. Korada Venkata Santharao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. Nagaraju, Chittoor Dist. Vs C.G.M., Ap Spdcl, Tirupati & 2 Ors.

Sagittal Infra Projects Vs the State of Ap

Guntupalli Rambabu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Mudapati Shiva Ganga Vs the State of Ap

Karnati Ramana Reddy Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

P Padda Raju Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh