Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kallempudi China Apparao vs Kallempudi Simhachalam on 25 November, 2024
APHC010297592022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1230/2022
Between:
Kallempudi China Apparao & Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Kallempudi Simhachalam & Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. G RAMA GOPAL
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. A RAJENDRA BABU
2.
The Court made the following:
2
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1230 of 2022
ORDER:
1. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order
dated 19.04.2022 in I.A.No.222 of 2022 in O.S.No.177 of 2008 passed
by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagara, Vizianagaram
District.
2. The Petitioners are the Defendants. After closure of the evidence
of D.W.1, the Petitioners/Defendants filed the present application
seeking to recall D.W.1 for further examination. This application was
opposed on the ground that D.W.1 was cross examined at length by
taking several adjournments and that the application could not be
maintained without seeking to reopen the evidence. The trial Court
dismissed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision
Petition is filed.
3. Heard Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the Petitioners
and Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the Respondents.
4. A reading of the Affidavit filed by the Petitioners/Defendants only
shows that though D.W.1 was cross examined on 23.11.2021 and also
on 24.11.2021 as certain aspects of the dispute were not questioned by
the Plaintiffs' counsel. It was also in that context the said application
was filed.
5. The suit is of the year 2008 and it is not a case where the
Plaintiff's counsel did not have opportunity to cross examine D.W.1.
The reason given for recall is that they failed to contradict the
documents. It is not a case, where new facts have come into light and
in the light of new facts, D.W.1 was sought to be cross examined.
Therefore, the order of the trial Court does not warrant any interference
by this Court.
6. In that context, the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy at paragraph 19 would be
relevant:
"19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section
151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely,
merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various
amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is
found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or
documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues
and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-
production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may
exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh
evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not
become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate
costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the court
should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so
that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be
mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should
be rejected with heavy costs."
7. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed. There shall be
no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 25.11.2024
IS
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1230 of 2022
Date: 25.11.2024
IS
