Telangana High Court

Somanaboina Pavani vs Somanaboina Sudhakar on 24 February, 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2266 and 2385 of 2024
ORDER:

Civil Revision Petition No.2266 of 2024 is filed challenging

the docket order, dated 19.06.2024, passed by the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Ramannapet in I.A.No.84 of 2024 in OS.No.77 of

2016, whereunder petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC

praying the Court to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for the purpose of cross-

examination was allowed.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.2385 of 2024 is filed challenging

the docket order, dated 19.06.2024, passed by the Principal Junior

Civil Judge, Ramannapet in I.A.No.83 of 2024 in OS.No.77 of

2016, whereunder petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC

praying the Court to reopen the case for the purpose of cross-

examination of P.Ws.1 and 2 was allowed.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions

is interconnected and the result is interdependent, both the

Revision Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by

common order.

4. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the

respondent herein is the defendant in the suit before the trial Court.

LNA, J CRP.Nos.2266 & 2385 of 2024

5. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as

they are arrayed in the suit.

6. Heard Smt Gayathri, learned counsel for the revision

petitioners and Sri G.Bhaskar, learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the entire material available on record.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the

defendant has filed the aforesaid applications nearly about 1 ½

years from the date of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, that too

at the fag end of the suit, i.e., at the time of arguments, without

giving any justifiable grounds for the delay that occurred in filing

the said applications; that the trial Court has misconstrued and

grossly failed to interpreted the reasons mentioned by defendant for

recalling P.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross-examination; and

therefore, she prayed this Court to allow these Civil Revision

Petitions.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that

the trial Court, by duly taking into consideration the facts and

circumstances of the case, has rightly allowed the aforesaid

LNA, J CRP.Nos.2266 & 2385 of 2024

applications, giving cogent and convincing reasons and therefore,

the impugned orders does not call for interference by this Court.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram (dead)

through L.Rs and others 1, judgment of the Rajasthan High Court

in Arjun Lal Vs. Pappu Lal @ Ramprasad and others2, judgment

of Dharwad Bench of Karnataka High Court in Leeledevi and

another Vs. Narayan (dead) through LRs and another 3, judgment

of this Court in CRP.No.1212 of 2013 and in Sandeep Gupta and

others Vs. State of Telangana and others4 and the erstwhile High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and

State of Andhra Pradesh in CRP.No.1624 of 2018.

10. This Court has thoroughly gone through the aforesaid

judgments. This Court has no quarrel with regard to the law laid

down and the principles enunciated as regards exercise of powers

of the Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC.

(2016)11 SCC 296

2012 SCC Online Raj 3196

ILR 2017 KAR 3557

2023 SCC Online TS 490

LNA, J CRP.Nos.2266 & 2385 of 2024

11. However, the facts of the case, grounds/reasons put forth by

the parties in the said cases for recalling of the witness(es) for

further cross-examination are completely different to that of the

present case, therefore, the same are not applicable to the present

case.

12. Perusal of the record would disclose that the suit was coming

up for arguments on 22.01.2024 and at that stage, the defendant

filed two applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for

re-opening of the suit and to recall of P.Ws.1 and 2 for the purpose

of cross-examination on the ground that due to ill health, he could

not be personally present when the cross-examination of P.Ws.1

and 2 was done by his counsel and therefore, he could not furnish

some important details of the case to his counsel.

13. The defendant further contended that on verification of

cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, he found that some important

points were missing, therefore, the aforesaid applications are filed.

14. However, the defendant failed to give cogent reasons for

filing the aforesaid applications at belated stage, that too, without

LNA, J CRP.Nos.2266 & 2385 of 2024

giving any details as to the points which were missed by his

counsel while cross-examining P.Ws.1 and 2.

15. In considered opinion of this Court, the reasons set out by

the defendant does not inspire confidence of this Court.

16. It is settled principle of law that a party cannot be permitted

to fill the lacuna in the evidence at a belated stage. Further, it is

also well established principle of law that power of the Courts

under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC has to be sparingly exercised and

only in appropriate cases where proper and reasonable grounds are

made out. However, in the present case, no proper reasons or

grounds are made out by the defendant for reopening of the suit

and recalling P.Ws.1 and 2 for the purpose of cross-examination.

17. It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Bagai Construction Vs. Gupta Building

Material Store5, relied upon by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, wherein it is held as hereunder:-

"Though power under Section 151 can be exercised if ends of justice so warrant and to prevent abuse of process of Court and Court can exercise its discretion to

(2013) 14 SCC 1

LNA, J CRP.Nos.2266 & 2385 of 2024

permit reopening of evidence or recalling of witness for further examination/cross examination after evidence led by the parties, in the light of the information as shown in the order of the trial Court, namely, those documents were very well available throughout the trial."

18. Further, at para-15 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court held as hereunder:-

"After change of various provisions by way of amendment in CPC, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that Courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered."

19. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the legal

position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

applications filed by the defendant are devoid of any merits and

that too filed at belated stage, i.e., when the suit was coming up for

LNA, J CRP.Nos.2266 & 2385 of 2024

arguments and therefore, the trial Court erred in allowing the

aforesaid applications.

20. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed

and the impugned orders passed by the trial Court are set aside.

21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. No costs.

_____________________________________ JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY