The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that reopening of evidence at the stage of arguments could only be allowed in exceptional and rare cases. Such applications can be allowed only where it is demonstrated that the party seeking such reopening was unable to produce evidence or produce witnesses despite due diligence and that facts that were not known earlier had come to light subsequently.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the Respondent filed the recovery suit before the Additional District judge based on a promissory note. However, the Respondent didn’t examine the attestors of the promissory note and then, the Petitioner moved the application for summoning the second attestor as a witness in his case on the ground that he later got to know that the attestor had fabricated the suit promissory notes with the active collusion of each other. The trial court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner filed the present criminal revision.
Contentions of the Petitioner
The Petitioner contended that there can be no question objection to summoning and examining a person as the evidence of the attestor is essential. It was furthermore contended that the trial court dismissed the application only on the ground that the stage of evidence is closed and the trial is at the stage of arguments.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble court observed that the reason given by the Petitioner regarding the reopening of evidence and for summoning of the attestors, as witnesses, is the alleged discovery of fabrication of the documents after the examination of the petitioner as a witness. However, it is contradictory to the fact that the Petitioner in the written statement denied the execution of the said promissory note.
The court furthermore observed that only in very unusual and exceptional circumstances the court may permit the reopening of evidence at the argument stage. Such types of applications are only admissible in cases where it is shown that, despite due diligence, the party requesting the reopening was unable to provide witnesses or evidence, and that facts that were previously unknown thereafter became apparent.
The court relied upon the judgment titled Jagadeesh Kumar vs. Mugili Venka Swamy
Based on these considerations, the court was of the view that there exists no reason to interfere with the order of the trial court.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court dismissed the revision petition.
Case Title: Pothalapala Hari Krishna V. G Krishnamurthy
Case No.: CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3280/2023
Coram; Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao
Advocate for the Petitioner: C M R VELU
Advocate for the Respondent: .SURYA TEJA ANUMOLU
Read Judgment @Latetslaws.com
Picture Source :
