Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Jujala Srinivas, vs Yalamanchiii Phaniendra Kumar, on 22 November, 2024
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R. Raghunandan Rao
1
RRR, J
C.R.P.No.1700/2024
APHC010300722024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [2605]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1770/2024
Between:
Smt. Atluri Jayaprada Devi, and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Sri Valluru Siddhartha and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. V V RAVI PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following Judgment:
The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.267 of 2013 on the file of the
XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, against the petitioner herein for recovery
of certain amounts said to have been advanced to the petitioner.
2. The respondent, on the ground that he was residing in the United
States of America, had appointed his father as his General Power of Attorney
Holder (GPA holder) to prosecute the suit. It appears that there was one more
suit bearing O.S.No.156 of 2014, which was clubbed with O.S.No.267 of 2013.
RRR, J
In the course of trial, the father of the petitioner had filed his affidavit in lieu of
Chief Examination, as PW.1, in March, 2017. Thereafter, the cross-
examination of PW.1 went on till September, 2022. After the completion of
cross-examination of PW.1, the respondent moved I.A.No.1228 of 2022 to
summon three witnesses. This application was dismissed on 20.02.2023,
against which, the respondent moved C.R.P.No.1675 of 2023, before this
Court. This revision petition is being disposed of by way of a separate order
pronounced today.
3. The respondent, who was residing in USA, came down to India
on 24.06.2024 and filed I.A.No.605 of 2024 seeking permission to appear as a
witness. The contention raised by the respondent was that the transactions,
on the basis of which the suit had been filed, were online bank transactions,
which were not fully known to his father and that certain transactions were not
within the knowledge of his father. The respondent further contended that,
since he was the person who was fully conversant with the transactions, he
should be permitted to depose as a witness in the suit. The respondent also
took the plea that he was unable to come down to India prior to June, 2024 on
account of the difficulties in travelling, due to Covid-19 Pandemic and also on
account of certain visa regulations.
4. The petitioner herein resisted the said application. The petitioner
contended that the statement of the respondent that he had not visited India
prior to June, 2024 cannot be accepted at face value, and the fact that the
RRR, J
respondent had not produced his passport, gave raise to any amount of doubt
as to the veracity of this statement. The petitioner contended that the
respondent, by seeking to depose as a witness, was trying to fill up all the
lacunae which had been brought out in the cross-examination of the father of
the respondent. The petitioner also contended that Order XVIII Rule 3-A of
C.P.C., requires permission from the Court before a party can examine
himself after a witness or witnesses had been examined on his behalf. The
petitioner contends that the grounds necessary for such permission have not
been made out by the respondent.
5. The trial Court, after hearing both sides, allowed the application,
by an order dated 18.07.2024, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-
payable to the petitioner. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner had
approached this Court.
6. Heard Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri Doddala Koteswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.
7. Order XVIII Rule 3-A of C.P.C., stipulates that any party, who has
not chosen to examine himself as his first witness, would have to seek
permission of the Court to depose as a witness, after some witnesses have
been examined on his behalf. The said provision does not set out any
guidelines or stipulations as to the conditions in which such permission can be
granted. In such circumstances, it would be open to the discretion of the Court
RRR, J
to consider any reasons given by such a party and to ascertain whether there
is a reasonable cause or not.
8. In the present case, the respondent was residing in USA and had
given a General Power of Attorney to his father to prosecute his case. The
father of the respondent was examined as PW.1 not only on the ground that
he was the General Power of Attorney of the respondent but also on the
ground that he was aware of the transactions between the petitioner and the
respondent. The father of the respondent was examined as PW.1 in March,
2017 and was cross-examined over a period of five years thereafter. The
respondent, after completion of the examination of PW.1, had filed an
application for summoning three witnesses, which was dismissed. Thereafter,
the respondent again moved I.A.No.605 of 2024 after coming back to India. In
such circumstances, it cannot be held that the application was belated or was
done to deliberately delay the trial.
9. The respondent contended that he was unable to examine
himself earlier on account of his residence in USA and that he wishes to
examine himself now as he has come down to India. The respondent also
contended that certain aspects of the transactions were not within the
knowledge of his father and that he would have to give evidence regarding
these transactions as he alone has personal knowledge of these transactions.
It is settled law that the power of attorney of a party is permitted to give
evidence only in relation to those facts, which are within his knowledge. In
RRR, J
such circumstances, the request of the respondent for grant of permission to
examination himself as a witness is a reasonable request which makes out
sufficient grounds for grant of such request.
10. Both sides had cited various judgments on the scope of Order
XVIII Rule 3-A C.P.C., as well as the status of GPA Holder as a witness and
the scope of examination of a GPA Holder. The judgments cited by both sides,
are in accord with the observations made in this order. Consequently, this
Court does not propose to dilate again on the said judgments.
11. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any,
shall stand closed.
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO,J
Js.
RRR, J
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1770 of 2024
22nd November, 2024
Js.
