Avvaru Srinivasa Rao Vs Gunturu Sarvani

AVVARU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HINDU, BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 12-5-5(1), GANGAVARAPUVARI VEEDHI, CHIRALA, CHIRALA MANDAL, BAPATIA DISTRICT

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

GUNTURU SARVANI, W/o. Venkata Subba Rao, Aged 55 years, Hindu, Housewife, R/o D.No. 13-29, Netaji Nagar, Behind Vegetable Market, Devangapuri, Jandrapet, Chirala Mandal, Bapatia District.

¶13

...RESPONDENT

¶14

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toThe above-named Petitioner begs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Docket Order dated 06-01-2026 in O.S. No. 12 of 2022, on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Chirala, for the following grounds among other

¶15

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in OS No. 12 of 2022 pending on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), at Chirala, pending disposal of the CRP and pass

¶17

2

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.JHANSI GUDURU

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶21

1.NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

3

¶24

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 562/2026

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the docket order dated 06.01.2026 in O.S.No.12 of 2022 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chirala and consequently permit the petitioner herein/defendant to cross-examine the witness i.e., P.W.3 in O.S.No.12 of 2022.

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶28

The petitioner herein is defendant and the respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit. For the sake of convenience of this Court, the parties are referred as arrayed in the suit.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submits that the plaintiff filed a suit basing upon a promissory note. The interlocutory application is filed by the petitioner to summon the scribe of the promissory note as witness before the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiff. The said I.A. filed under Order 16 Rule 1 of C.P.C, the same was allowed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the scribe of the promissory note was examined as witness. While adducing evidence by the plaintiff, the scribe was examined as P.W.3 and he denied the passing of consideration between both the parties at his presence. Basing upon the said statement of P.W.3 in his chief examination,

¶30

4

¶31

the petitioner sought for declaration of him as hostile witness as per Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the trial court while declaring P.W.3 as hostile witness, but allowed the counsel for the plaintiff/respondent herein for cross-examination and denied the crossexamination by the petitioner herein/defendant by way of docket order dated 06.01.2026, which is contrary to Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

¶33

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 empowers the trial Court to exercise discretionary power to provide opportunity to the plaintiff himself to be questioned against his own witness requires by way of crossexamination. Since the P.W.3 made a statement contrary to the interest of the plaintiff, he sought for declaration as hostile witness and accordingly, the plaintiff was permitted to cross-examine P.W.3. The said action of the trial Court is in accordance with law much less as per Section 154 of the Act.

¶34

Heard both the learned counsel and perused the material placed on record. As contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant that denying the opportunity to the petitioner/defendant for cross-examination of P.W.3 is contrary to Section 154 of the Act is valid and to be considered. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents agreed for crossexamination of P.W.3 by the petitioner herein.

¶35

5

¶36

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the present C.R.P. can be disposed of by holding that the docket order dated 06.01.2026 is bad and liable to be set aside. Further, the trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner/defendant therein for further crossexamination of P.W.3.

¶37