M/S M R S Aqua Solutions vs M/S Indo Ametical Technologies
2022 Latest Caselaw 2000 AP

        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. 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

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.

9. Miscellaneous Applications, if any pending, stand

disposed of.

__________________________________ (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)

__________________________________ (TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, J)

Dsh