THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1365 and 1387 of 2022
COMMON ORDER:
C.R.P.No.1365 of 2022 is filed against the order dated 01.04.2022
passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.183 of
2022 in O.S.No.5 of 2012, whereas C.R.P.No.1387 of 2022 is filed
against the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil
Judge, Sangareddy, in I.A.No.184 of 2022 in O.S.No.5 of 2022.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant has stated that the
respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for cancellation of agreement of
sale dated 13.08.2009 and for perpetual injunction of the suit schedule plot. Learned counsel has further stated that the cross-examination of P.W.1 was not done thoroughly by the learned counsel on record, and therefore, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.183 of 2022 seeking to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination on the point of Ex.A.1, and I.A.No.184 of 2022 to reopen the case for further cross-examination of P.W.1. The Court below, without properly appreciating the facts and legal proposition of law, has dismissed both the I.As. Learned counsel has further stated that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent 2 if P.W.1 is recalled and the case is reopened for the purpose of cross- examination. Therefore, he has prayed this Court to pass any orders including imposition of costs.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the cross-examination of P.W.1 was done on 19.11.2018 and the present I.As were filed in February, 2022. That the present I.As were filed with a mala fide intention and to fill up the lacunae in the cross- examination of P.W.1. Therefore, the Court below has rightly dismissed the I.As, and the impugned orders need no interference by this Court and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions.
A perusal of the impugned orders shows that the learned Judge, while taking into consideration the fact that P.W.1 was cross-examined on 19.11.2018, held that no cogent or convincing reasons were given by the defendant to recall P.W.1 and reopen the case for further cross- examination, and accordingly dismissed both the I.As.
When queried by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that subsequent to the cross-examination of P.W.1, no new material was placed on record by either of the parties, which may have warranted the recalling of the plaintiff for the purpose of further cross-examination. In the absence of any new 3 evidence, either oral or documentary, the I.As filed by the petitioner can only be said to be for the purpose of filling up the lacunae in the cross-examination of P.W.1, which was completed on 19.11.2018, and the same is not permissible under law.
In Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a witness cannot be recalled for filling up the lacunae in the cross-examination.
Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment referred to above and the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders warranting any interference by this Court.
The Civil Revision Petitions are, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________ A. ABHISHEK REDDY, J Date: 01.07.2022 va 1 2009 (4) SCC 410