Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy, ... vs Yendapalli Srinivasulu Reddy, ... on 16 August, 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVAT!
TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF ALIGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
> PRESENT 2

NONQURABLE SRI USTICE DAVLS.S. SOMAYAJUU
ANG. 3 of 2022
iN
ELECTION PETITION No. tof 2097

 

Beiween
Yerndanalll Srinivasulu Reddy, Ro. H.No. 3-54 H, Park Street,
Chinnagettigalu, Chittcor District

 

_.Petitioner/1* Respondnet,
AND
\. Yermireddy Pattabhirami Reddy, 5/q. Rajaram! Reddy, Aged 49 years,
Rio. H.No. -F- 45, Flat No. 904, PLY UR. Enclave, Nellroe,
SPSR Nellore Oistrict, Andhra Pradesh, wt Respondent /Petitiengr.
2.fturl Rarmmacharmra Reddy, Ria. HONG. 1-23, Gabburu Wilage,
Peddaravidu Mandal, Prakasarn District.
3.Qnteru Kiran Kumar Yadav, R/o. Dandigunta Vilage, Varini Past,
Vidavaluru Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.
4 Vupou Rajesh Royal, R/a. H.No. 6/43, Eedulagunta, Thottemh bedu,
Chittear (istrict.
&.Eluri Samiredy, Ryo. H.No. 1-23, Gabburu Village, Peddaravidu Marnial,
Prakasam (strict.
& Kadiyarn Ramaiah © Ramaiah Yadav, R/o. Gobburu Village,
Peddaravidu Mandal, Prakasam District.
7. Rarimuliah, Rio. Kovuru Village, Kovuru Mandal, SPS Nellore District.
&.Kandrededy Narayana Reddy, R/o. H.No. 8-114-6, Rothapet,
Kaniviri, Prakasam District.
§, Chavala Koteswara Raa, R/o. Surepalll Past, Balllkurava Mandal,
Prakasam Uistrict,
iQ. Dannarapu Masthan Ran, R'o, H.No, 34-55-583, Ayyvannaveedhi,
Satyanarayanapuram, Ongoale Town, Prakasam ONistrict.
{4B Ven Rata ramana, Ria. H.No. 4 1907/4, Durga Nagar Colony,
' Chittear, ¢ it Htoor { str} ct.
12.Dr Sanagapatl Naga Brahmananda Chary, R/o. NNo. 72-455,
Opp >. Government Naspital, Addankt, Prakasam fh ENstric'.
'3.Dr. S. Subash Rad, R tia, HNO. 19-4 130, J.P. Road, New Pet, Kupparm Mandal,
Chitteer istrict.
14. The Returning Officer, Prakasam-Nellare-Chitteor Graduate Constituency
and District Collector, Chittoer.

 

SQ
AC}

SS
4

. Respondents/ Respondents.

. Petition uruier Section 734 of C.P.0., praying that in the circumstances
stated in the Affidavit fled therein, the High Court may be pleased to reopen
a evidence of PW 1 and to recall him far further cross exanrination on behalf

of the 1° Respondent in Election Petitien No.1 /2iy? and allow this Reso
S further cross examina ation the PW, pending disposal of E.P.Ne. T of 20T/
the file of High Court

And whereas the High Court, upon perusing the pefitien and the memo
of grounds filed herein and earlier order of High Court dt. 28-03-2022 and 28-
OF-2022 made herein upon hearing the arguments of Sri Syed AR Basha,
Advocate for petitiener/Respondent No.1} ard of Sri E.V.V.S. Ravi Kumar,
counsel for Che Respandient No. i /petitiener, the Court made the following

ORDER :.
 

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.V.S.S.SOMAYAJULU
| L.A.No.3 of 2022
in
E.P.No.1 of 2017
ORDER:

This application is filed by the petitioner-1st respondent to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination.

2) The application was very strongly objected to by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-petitioner, who argued that recall is not a relief that should be easily granted; that the application is opposed to the Civil Rules of Practice; that conditions for 'recall' similar to a 'review of a judgment' must be present like discovery of new facts etc., that there are no valid or cogent reasons attributed for the recall etc. The learned counsel cited case law for each of this proposition.

3) The learned senior counsel for the petitioner-1st respondent, however, pointed out that procedure is the handmaiden of justice; that the attempt is to find out the "truth"; that issues were not framed before the examination was commenced and completed and that, therefore; the 1st respondent in the E.O.P. will suffer loss if he is not permitted to further' cross-examine as per the issues.

4) The following are some of the important dates and docket orders in this case which have a bearing for deciding this

interlocutory application to recall P.W.1:

15.06.2022:

"Learned counsel for the respondents raises objection about the admissibility of the documents, which are annexed to the Election Petition.

List the matter on 23.06.2022 at 2.15 p.m." 08.07.2022:

"Chief examination of PW.1 is completed. Ex.Al to A5 are marked. |

At request of learned counsel for the respondents for cross examination, post the matter on 13.07.2022 after Division Bench Work."

13.07.2022:

"PW 1 called present. Examined in cross.

List on 14.07.2022 for further cross-examination." 14.07.2022:

"PW 1 called present for further cross-examination. Examined in cross.

List on 15.07.2022 at 2.15 p.m., for further cross- examination."

15.07.2022:

"PW 1 called present for further cross-examination. Examined in cross.

List on 18.07.2022 for further evidence, if any." 26.07.2022: |

"Both the learned counsel, at the suggestion of the Court, have filed their suggested / draft issues.

List on 28.07.2022 for formal framing of issues."

5) It is thus clear that the evidence was let in, in the form of chief-examination and cross-examination before the issues were framed. Neither of the counsels pointed this out to the Court. This lack of "formal" issues was noticed by the Court and the learned counsels filed the draft issues at the suggestion of this Court (26.07.2022). Thereafter, issues were formally

framed and the last issue was again recast at the suggestion of

the learned senior counsel for respondent. Since it was felt to be an error of the Court, the last issue was recast in the presence of both the learned counsels.

6) This Court has to admit that although the parties were aware of the facts / issues involved in this case; the formal framing of issues was not done. The counsels had a duty also to point this out, but in the ultimate analysis it is an error apparent and it is due to the fault of the Court. This Court _ should also have been more careful and noticed this fact. This is 'sufficient reason' to recall P.W.1 for further cross- examination.

7) Finally, as a party should not suffer for the fault of the Court and as the trial is in a way at a nascent stage (only the first witness is examined) this application is ordered.

8) The application is, allowed. As admitted in the affidavit filed in I.A.No.3 of 2022 and as submitted during hearings, the further cross-examination will be limited to the ' issues as framed on 28.07.2022 and on 01.08.2022. Objection can be raised to any question, which is beyond this undertaking of cross-examination on the issues framed and the same will be noted and decided at the appropriate stage. This direction is given to ensure the continuity since the case relates to an Election dispute which should have been decided in six months

as per the Act.

9) I.A.No.3 of 2022 is, therefore, allowed. List on

17.08.2022 at 2.15 p.m., for further cross-examination of

P.W.1.

Sd/-P.V.Ramana JOINT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY // V SECTION OFFICER

vu FIUIN UPCICER

1.Vemireddy Pattabhirami Reddy, S/o. Rajarami Reddy, R/o. H.No. 16-7-45, Flat No. 504, P.V.R. Enclave, Nellroe, SPSR Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh.

2.Sri E.V.S.S. Ravi Kumar, Advocate, High Court of A.P., (OPUC)

3.Sri Syed Arif Basha, Advocate, High Court of A.P., (OPUC)

4.Two CCs to the G.P. for General Administration, High Court of A. P, At Amaravati.

5.Copy to the Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P., at Amaravati.

6.Section Officer, O.S. Section, High Court of A.P., at Amaravati.

7.One spare copy.

TKK

»)

HIGH COURT

OSS.

DATEO: 16-08-2022.

ORDER LANG. 3 of 2022 iN