The High Court dismissed two civil revision petitions filed under Article 226 challenging orders refused to reopen a civil trial and recall a witness. The Court held that the right to cross-examine was forfeited due to non-cooperation, satisfied by a prior opportunity granted.
No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4546 & 4741 of 2015
COMMON ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
These Civil Revision Petitions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are filed aggrieved by the docket orders dated 06.12.2015 in I.A.Nos.3104 & 3105 of 2013 in O.S.No.772 of 2012 passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
The respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit in the year 2012 for eviction of the petitioner/defendant from the suit schedule property and also damages. When the case was posted for defendant’s evidence after closure of the evidence of the petitioner, the present I.As are filed to reopen the case and to recall PW.1 for further crossexamination. By the impugned docket orders, the Court below dismissed the said I.As. Challenging the order passed in I.A.No.3104 of 2013 filed for re-opening the case, CRP.No.4741 of 2015 is filed, whereas questioning the order passed in I.A.No.3105 of 2013 filed for recalling PW.1 for further cross-examination, CRP.No.4546 of 2015 is filed.
Heard and perused the impugned orders and other material placed on record.
The impugned orders clearly disclose that an affidavit in lieu of chief examination of PW.1 was filed on 04.10.2013 and thereafter an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to record the crossexamination of PW.1. However, in view of the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner stating that the counsel for the
petitioner/defendant was not cooperating with him to cross-examine PW.1, the right to cross-examine PW.1 was forfeited. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.2757 of 2013 to recall PW.1 for crossexamination and the same was allowed and PW.1 was crossexamined. Later on, the present I.As are filed stating that some questions regarding advance payment and also payments made through the banker’s cheque, were not put to PW.1 and therefore prayed to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination, by reopening the case.
Even though the counsel for the petitioner did not co-operate with the Advocate Commissioner in cross-examining PW.1, the petitioner was earlier given an opportunity by allowing I.A.No.2757 of 2013 filed for recalling PW.1 for cross-examination and, in pursuance thereof, PW.1 was recalled and cross-examined. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in these revisions so as to interfere with the impugned order.
Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY
20.11. 2015
v v
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the lower court erred in refusing to reopen the case and recall a witness for further cross-examination after the party forfeited the right by non-cooperation.
Whether the civil revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution warrants interference with the dismissal of interpleader applications.
R. SUBHASH REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
