Dwaraka Pershad Chowdary vs Sapna Goel
2022 Latest Caselaw 4332 Tel

           HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

      CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1841 OF 2022

                     Date:26.08.2022


Between:

Dwaraka Pershad Chowdary,
S/o. Late Sri Ranganath Chowdhary,
Aged about 62 Years, Occ: Business,
R/o.H.No 14-1-301/1, Seetarampet,
Mangalhat, Hyderabad.


                                            .....Petitioner

     And

Sapna Goel, W/o.Subhash Goel,
Aged about 48 years, Occ: Household,
R/o.H.No.14-1-358, New Aghapura Colony,
Aghapura, Hyderabad, and others.



                                          .....Respondents

The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1841 OF 2022

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.Naveen Rao)

Heard Sri Pawan Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for

petitioner.

2. Petitioner is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.700 of 2014 in

the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at

Hyderabad. The suit underwent several adjournments to

enable the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1. Similarly, the

case was adjourned for cross-examination of PW.2 also.

In spite of granting sufficient time, PW.1 and PW.2 were not

cross-examined. The Court recorded the cross-examination of

PW.1 and PW.2 as nil and the matter was reserved for

judgment.

3. Petitioner (defendant No.1) filed I.A.No.930 of 2017 in

O.S.No.700 of 2014 under Order 18 Rule 17 of Code of Civil

Procedure (for short 'CPC') to recall PW.1 and PW.2 for the

purpose of cross examination. Having considered the reasons

assigned and having looked into the record of how the matter

underwent several adjournments, the trial Court was not

inclined to accept the plea to recall PW.1 and PW.2 for cross

examination and dismissed the said I.A., by order dated

27.08.2019.

4. The order dated 27.08.2019 is challenged now in this

revision petition. In the affidavit filed in support of this

revision petition and also in the affidavit filed in support of

I.A.No.1 of 2022, no reasons are assigned as to why petitioner

could not cross-examine PW.1 and PW.2 within the time

granted by the trial Court. It is also seen that there are no

averments as to why petitioner took three more years to

challenge the order passed by the Court below in rejecting the

application to recall PW.1 and PW.2 for cross-examination.

5. Petitioner cannot choose his own time and convenience

to come to this Court and file a petition to set-aside the order

passed by the trial Court dated 27.08.2019 which concerns

recalling PW.1 and PW.2 for cross-examination. Therefore, I do

not see any bonafides in prosecuting this litigation. I am also

satisfied with the reasons assigned by the Court below in

rejecting the application for recalling PW.1 and PW.2.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

__________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J

Date: 26.08.2022 PT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1841 of 2022

Date: 26.08.2022

PT