Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Basingala Suryanarayana vs N.Satyanarayana Murthy on 28 November, 2023
1
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
C.R.P.Nos.2540 and 2541 of 2023
COMMON ORDER:
The Revision Petition No.2540 of 2023, under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated
15.09.2023, passed in I.A.No. 341 of 2023 in O.S.No. 53 of 2007
on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri,
Ananthapuramu District, (in short „the court below‟). The
impugned application has been filed under Section 151 of C.P.C
seeking to reopen the suit for further examination in chief of the
petitioner/ defendant.
The Revision Petition No.2541 of 2023, under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated
15.09.2023, passed in I.A.No. 342 of 2023 in O.S.No. 53 of 2007
on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri,
Ananthapuramu District, (in short „the court below‟). The
impugned application has been filed under Section 151 of C.P.C
seeking to recall the petitioner/ defendant (DW-1) for the purpose
of examine further chief to exhibit the certified copy of the
registered sale deed dated 14.10.2002 in the suit.
2. Since the facts and issue involved in both the revisions
are one and the same, I find it expedient to decide these matters
by a Common Order.
3. Heard Sri Seelam Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for
the respondents 2 to 6.
4. The petitioner herein is the defendant; the respondents
are the plaintiffs before the court below.
5. During hearing learned counsel for the petitioner would
mainly contend that both applications have been filed to reopen
the suit for the purpose of examine the petitioner/ defendant for
further in chief for exhibiting the registered sale deed dated
14.10.2022, which is crucial for proper adjudication of the rival
contentions in the suit. But the court below has not given ample
opportunity to the petitioner and dismissed the applications
without assigning any reasons, except observing that there is no
such direction to receive the additional evidence in the Judgment
in A.S.No.70 of 2016 on the file of the court of Special Sessions
Judge for trial of SCs and STs Cases-cum-VIII Additional Sessions
Judge, Ananthapuramu (in short "the first appellate court"). The
court below failed to see that the appellate court while remanding
the matter gave a direction to dispose of the suit afresh, which
suggest that the trial court could permit the parties to adduce
evidence if required for a fair and just decision of the case, but the
court below ignored the fact that the existence and execution of
the sale deed dated 14.10.2022 was admitted by DW-2 in his
evidence and no prejudice will be caused to any one if the said
document is marked. Therefore the impugned orders passed in
both the applications are not in accordance with law and that the
same is liable to be set aside.
6. Whereas learned counsel for the respondents vehemently
opposed to allow the revisions as the court below rightly
considered the facts and circumstances of the case and dismissed
the applications as there is no specific direction from the first
appellate court to receive further evidence in the suit while
remanding the suit for fresh disposal. It is further contended that
in A.S.No.70 of 2016, the first appellate court remanded the suit to
court below to consider the evidence on record and to dispose of
the suit afresh by hearing both sides and by answering each issue
framed on 11.12.2008. Therefore there is no need or necessity to
reopen or recall the witness for further cross examination or
marking of any document. Hence, the revisions are not
maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed.
7. Perused the record.
8. No doubt, while setting aside the decree and judgment of
the court below passed in O.S.No.53 of 2007 by the first appellate
court in A.S.No. 70 of 2016 specifically has given a direction to the
court below to consider the evidence on record and dispose of the
matter afresh after bearing both sides by answering each issue
framed on 11.12.2008 within one month as the matter is of the
year 2007. When there is specific direction passed in the appeal as
referred above, there is no need or necessity to reexamine the
witness or no necessity to mark any document. Further there is no
specific direction was passed to receive any document or examine
the witness, only a direction to the court below to consider the
evidence on record and dispose of the suit afresh after hearing
both sides within one month. At that stage, the petitioner/
defendant filed the above two applications, which is highly
unwarranted, it appears the petitioners are protracting the suit for
unlimited period. Since the first appellate court has fixed time to
dispose of the suit afresh within one month, it is the duty of the
both parties to co-operate with the court below to see that the suit
be disposed of within time frame, but strangely the petitioner came
up with two applications, which was dismissed by the court below.
Aggrieved by the same, he again approached this Court by way of
revisions, which is not maintainable.
9. In the instant case, it is observed that the first appellate
court has remanded back the matter to the court below for fresh
adjudication and that the exercise shall be completed within one
month, but the court below has taken more than five years though
time has been fixed. It is further observed that whatever the
reasons for not disposing the suit by the court below has not been
mentioned by the petitioner herein also, because this reason only,
the petitioner has taken undue advantage for filing this type of
petitions before this Court. In view of the same, the court below
has to follow the directions of the first appellate court and shall
obey the same in true letter and spirit manner while disposing the
suit for strict compliance.
10. In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court finds any
merit in the case of the petitioner/ defendant and the petitioner is
not entitled to reexamine the witness or reopen the suit at any
cost. It is only limited extent and it is made clear in the order
passed by the first appellate court. Therefore, the contention of the
petitioner cannot be considered at this stage. Hence, the revisions
are liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, both the C.R.Ps are dismissed by a common
order, with a direction to the court below to dispose of the suit
within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order
and comply with the directions of the first appellate court in
A.S.No. 70 of 2016. Both the parties to the suit are hereby directed
to co-operate with the court below to dispose of the suit at the
earliest. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall also stand closed.
___________________________
DR.K.MANMADHA RAO, J
Date: 28.11.2023.
Note : The Registry is directed to communicate the copy
of this Order to all the courts below in the State.
B/o
KK
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
C.R.P.Nos.2540 and 2541 of 2023
Date: 28.11.2023.
KK
