THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2271 OF 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 26.09.2022 in I.A.No.617 of 2022 in O.P.No.2 of 2015 filed under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'CPC') with a prayer to recall RW1 for the purpose of further cross- examination. The learned Judge, I Additional Family Court, Hyderabad has dismissed the said application in I.A.No.617 of 2022 along with I.A.No.618 of 2022 filed under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the evidence of RW1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. Feeling aggrieved by the said common order this civil revision petition is filed only in I.A.No.617 of 2022. The revision petitioner has not assailed the orders in I.A.No.618 of 2022.
2. Notice is served on the respondent, who remained absent without any representation.
AVR,J CRP_2271_2022 Page 2 of 5
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The submissions made on behalf of the revision petitioner have received due consideration of this Court.
4. This application is filed to recall RW1 for further cross-examination. As per the averments in the supporting affidavit, the witness RW1 and another witness RW2 were cross-examined and the evidence on both sides is closed, her counsel conducted cross-examination, requested the Advocate Commissioner to bring the copies of exhibits from the Court, chief evidence affidavit was filed into nine pages and more than thirty pages documents were appended to it. The learned Advocate Commissioner has failed to take note of all these aspects.
5. Be it stated that there is no record to that effect that aggrieved by the conduct of the Advocate Commissioner, any Memo was filed before the trial Court. In-fact, as per the order impugned the report filed by the Advocate Commissioner was accepted without there being any objections made by either side. Accordingly, the learned Judge of the trial Court has held that unethical AVR,J CRP_2271_2022 Page 3 of 5 litigants shall not be permitted to pollute the proceedings and the petitioner cannot seek the relief of recall of RW1.
6. The present application along with another application in I.A.618 of 2022 was filed after closure of evidence of both sides and at the stage of arguments. Accordingly, the learned Judge of the trial court has held that no such Memo was filed nor any representation was made as to the conduct of the Advocate Commissioner in not allowing her counsel to cross-examine the witness and abruptly closing the cross-examination without giving any opportunity, accordingly, dismissed the said application.
7. In this context, I may refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s.Bagai Constructions through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai Vs.M/s.Gupta Building Material Stores1 wherein the Apex court while dealing with an application under Order XVIII, Rule 17 of CPC for recall of witnesses held that recording of evidence is a continuous process followed by arguments and decision of the Court. Adjournments, reopening and recalling of witnesses are 1 AIR 2013 SC 1849 AVR,J CRP_2271_2022 Page 4 of 5 only to be allowed in compelling circumstances sparingly and such applications should not be allowed merely on the ground that recall and re-examination would not cause prejudice to the other side and it is not the scheme or intention of Order XVIII, Rule 17 of CPC.
8. Therefore, when the facts of the case are tested on the touchstone of the principles laid in the above decision, the answer is in negative and in my considered opinion the revision petitioner is not entitled for recall of RW1 at the stage of arguments and any such exercise would amount to allowing the revision petitioner to fill up lacuna which is impermissible under law. That apart the order in I.A.No.618 of 2022 is also not assailed by the petitioner, which was filed for reopening the evidence of respondents. Therefore, for all the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in the request made by the petitioner, no jurisdictional error or infirmity is committed by the trial Court in dismissing the orders impugned and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.
AVR,J CRP_2271_2022 Page 5 of 5
9. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 26.09.2022 in I.A.No.617 of 2022 in O.P.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the learned Judge, I Additional Family Court, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.
However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stands closed.
________________________________ A.VENKATESWHARA REDDY, J Dated : 05-12-2022 Abb