Telangana High Court
Sheelam Swarupa vs Merugu Jyothi on 21 January, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3903 OF 2023
ORAL ORDER:
This revision petition is filed challenging the order
dated 01.10.2023 made in IA.No.666 of 2023 in OS.No.05 of
2020 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Sangareddy.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents
herein who are defendants in the suit, filed IA.No.666 of
2023 to recall PW.1 for further cross examination. After
hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed the said petition.
Aggrieved thereby, this Revision Petition is preferred by
petitioner herein who is respondent in the said petition and
plaintiff in the suit.
3. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao Sirikonda, learned counsel for
petitioner/respondent/plaintiff, and Sri M.Vijay, learned
senior counsel appearing for Sri Mehboob Ali, learned
counsel for respondents/petitioners/defendants.
SKS, J
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
originally the suit is of the year 2016 i.e., OS.No.8 of 2016
on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, at Siddipet,
but the same was later transferred to Sangareddy, and got
renumbered as OS.No.5 of 2020. He contended that the only
ground raised by other side to recall PW.1 was that the
earlier counsel could not examine the witness properly on
certain aspects and that the same cannot be considered as
valid ground to recall the witness. In support of this
contention, he relied on the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Vadiraj Naggappa
Vernekar Vs. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate 1, Gayathri
Vs. M.Girish 2 and judgment rendered by this Court in
Kasimhanti Venkata Srinivasa Srikrishna Geethanand
Vs. Kandukuri Butchi Mallikeswara Rao 3. He averred that
in all the above mentioned cases, in nutshell, it was clearly
observed that without a valid ground being raised, the
witness cannot be recalled on frivolous grounds. Therefore,
he prayed this Court to allow the revision petition, setting
aside the impugned order.
1 Civil Appeal No.1172 of 2009 dated 24.02.2009
2 (2016) 14 SCC 142
3 2017 LawSuit (Hyd) 906
SKS, J
5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel appearing
for respondents, submitted that one opportunity has to be
given to the respondents to cross examine PW.1 on certain
aspects which were not properly covered by the earlier
counsel. He averred that suit was filed for partition, as such,
no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner if PW.1 is
recalled for further cross examination. Therefore, he prayed
this Court to dismiss the revision petition.
6. Having regard to the rival submissions made and on
going through the material placed on record, it is noted that
the limited grievance of petitioner is that even when there
was no valid ground to recall PW.1, the trial Court recalled
PW.1 with a view to give opportunity to respondents herein.
It is further noted that originally the suit was of the year
2016 and the same was transferred and renumbered as
OS.No.5 of 2020 and the same is pending until today.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court deems it fit to direct the trial Court to fix a date of
hearing for cross examination of PW.1 and on the date so
fixed by the trial Court, PW.1 has to attend the Court and
SKS, J
the respondents herein shall examine the witness. However,
if they fail to examine the witness on the date so fixed by the
trial Court, this order stands vacated. Further, keeping in
mind the fact that originally the suit was of the year 2016,
the trial Court is directed to dispose of the same at the
earliest.
8. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition
is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also
stand closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
Date:21.01.2025
PT
