Koppolu Rama Rao vs Babburi Sujatha
2022 Latest Caselaw 5195 AP

                                     1


         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1375 of 2022

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated

13.06.2022 in I.A.No.260 of 2022 in O.S.No.43 of 2012 on the file of

XII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.

02. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the respondents

and perused the material available on record.

03. The petitioners are the Plaintiffs and the respondents are the

Defendants in O.S.No.43 of 2012 on the file of XII Additional District

Judge, Vijayawada.

04. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they filed a suit

in O.S.No.43 of 2012 against the respondents to declare them as

absolute owners in respect of the plaint schedule property and for

other reliefs. After completion of five years of the evidence of the

Pws. 2 and 3, the respondents filed I.A.No.260 of 2022 for recalling

PW.2 for the purpose of cross examination. The trial Court, on

erroneous consideration of the facts, allowed the said petition on

payment of costs of Rs.500/-. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners

filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

05. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the

Order passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence

and probabilities of the case. The reason shown by the respondents

for cross examination of PW.2 is that their counsel did not put certain

material questions to the witness when he was cross examined, which

is not a relevant ground for granting permission for recalling the

witness for further cross examination and against the requirement

under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC. The respondent No.1 filed

O.S.No.2687 of 2020 on the file of IV Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vijayawada, for declaration and injunction against the mother of the

petitioners, and after elaborated trial, the same was dismissed in the

year 2008, and thereafter the respondent No.1 and another preferred

an appeal in A.S.No.113 of 2008 before VII Addl. District Judge,

Vijayawada and the same is pending. Therefore, the respondents

have knowledge about O.S.No.2687 of 2000 and the Appeal No.113 of

2008 and, as such, the respondents are not permitted to recall Pw.2

for further cross examination at this belated stage. I.A.No.260 of 2022

is filed only to drag on the proceedings in the lower Court and also to

harass the senior most citizen, who is aged about 74 years and who is

not able to walk and suffering from old aged problems. The trial

Court ought to have seen that the schedule property mentioned in

O.S.No.2688 of 2000 is totally different to the present suit.

Therefore, he prayed to allow the present Civil Revision Petition.

06. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that they came to

know that PW.2, who is closely associated with the plaintiffs, gave

evidence as DW.3 in O.S.No.2688 of 2000 filed by the mother of the

respondent No.1 against the mother of the plaintiff only after

examining PW.2. When they verified the connected appeal in

A.S.No.113 of 2018 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge,

Vijayawada, which is filed against the decree and judgment in

O.S.No.2688 of 2000, the respondents realized that PW.2 gave some

important admissions and also gave contradictory statements in

O.S.No.43 of 2012, which differs from the earlier evidence. The

respondents could not examine the PW.2 with regard to his deposition

given in O.S.No.2688 of 2000 and the statements made by him in the

said deposition, which are very vital, and as such, it is just and

necessary to recall PW.2 for further cross examination with reference

to his previous deposition and other evidence collected by the

respondents. Therefore, the counsel prays to dismiss the present Civil

Revision Petition.

07. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsel and

upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the

trial Court allowed I.A.No.260 of 2022 in O.S.No.43 of 2012 by its

Order dated 13.06.2022 on condition of payment of costs of Rs.500/-

by the petitioners therein to the respondents and the petitioners shall

cross examine the PW.2 on the next date of hearing, failing which,

the petition shall stand dismissed. The trial Court posted the case for

cross examination on 17.06.2022. Against the said Orders, the

petitioners filed the present Civil Revision Petition on 14.07.2022 and

it is listed for admission on 22.07.2022. To serve the copies to the

Caveator, at request of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is

adjourned to 25.07.2022.

08. On careful perusal of the order dated 13.06.2022 in I.A.No.260

of 2022 in O.S.No.43 of 2012 on the file of the Court of XII Additional

District Judge, Vijayawada, the trial Court made it clear that the

petitioners shall cross examine P.W.2 on 17.06.2022, failing which the

petition shall stand dismissed.

09. Now, both the counsel appearing for the petitioners and the

respondents submit that P.W.2 was not cross examined on

17.06.2022 and as such, in the considered opinion of this Court, I.A.

No.260 of 2022 in O.S.No.43 of 2012 stands dismissed. In view of

the submissions made by both the counsels, no further orders are

required in the present Civil Revision Petition.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is closed.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this case shall stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt. 16.08.2022 eha/mp

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1375 of 2022

Dt. 16 -08-2022

eha