HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
AND
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.719 OF 2022
M/s. M. R. S. Aqua Solutions,
Rep. by its GPA Holder,
Sri Rajesh Kumar Thakur. ... Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Indo American Technologies,
Rep. by its GPA Holder,
Sri Manikonda Vijaya Kumar. ... Respondent
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. CH. B. R. P. Sekhar, Advocate Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Y. S. Vijaya Pratap, Advocate CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.720 OF 2022 M/s. M. R. S. Aqua Solutions, Rep. by its GPA Holder, Sri Rajesh Kumar Thakur. ... Petitioner Versus M/s. Indo American Technologies, Rep. by its GPA Holder, Sri Manikonda Vijaya Kumar. ... Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. CH. B. R. P. Sekhar, Advocate Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Y. S. Vijaya Pratap, Advocate ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT Date: 25.04.2022 (Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah) Heard Mr. CH. B. R. P. Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Y. S. Vijaya Pratap, learned counsel for the respondent, in both the cases.
2
2. Civil Revision Petition No.719 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 16.03.2022 passed in I.A. No.16 of 2022 in C.O.S. No.13 of 2020, by which a petition seeking to recall PW1 for further cross-examination, filed on behalf of the petitioner/defendant, has been rejected; whereas, Civil Revision Petition No.720 of 2022 has been filed against the order dated 16.03.2022 passed in I.A. No.17 of 2022 in C.O.S. No.13 of 2020, by which the prayer for reopening the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff, has been rejected.
3. The controversy lies in a narrow compass. The respondent filed a money suit against the petitioner, who was defendant, and after the evidence of respondent/plaintiff was closed, some documents were filed on behalf of the plaintiff pertaining to identify of the witness PW1. The petitioner/defendant filed I.As. No.16 and 17 of 2022 praying that after reopening of the evidence, the witness be recalled for cross-examination in view of the documents subsequently filed by the respondent/plaintiff relating to the identity of the said witness. The same have been rejected.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that any document which has been filed by the respondent which was not present at the time of examination, would give a right to the petitioner for reopening of the evidence and for further cross- examination for the reason that an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner to put questions with regard to the veracity and otherwise of the document and not doing so would lead to miscarriage of justice and would also be against the settled principle of law that opportunity has to be given to any party, if 3 any document or further material is brought before the Court, after closing of the evidence.
5. At this stage, on a query of the Court as to whether the documents which they have filed, admittedly subsequent to closing of the evidence, would be relied upon for any purpose including at the time of making final arguments, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they would not be referring to or relying upon the same even during arguments. It was submitted that only because of the challenge made by the petitioner to the identity of PW1, such documents were filed. The same stand was categorically reiterated that the respondent/plaintiff would neither rely upon nor take the ground in their arguments on the basis of the documents filed subsequent to closing of the evidence.
6. Having considered the controversy, especially the categorical stand taken on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, as recorded above, the Court finds that the ground of filing of further documents after closing of evidence for recall of the witness, no more exists.
7. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions stand disposed of observing that the respondent/plaintiff shall not rely upon or take the help of the documents filed later, at the time of arguments and the Court below shall also not consider the documents in question while passing final order. No order as to costs.
8. It is clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.
4
9. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, stand disposed of.
__________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J) __________________________________ (TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J) Dsh