Telangana High Court
Vallamdasu Shruthi vs Vallakati Amarendar on 7 March, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 362 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Pasham
Mohith, learned Standing Counsel for respondent and perused the
record.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the
order dated 28.01.2025 in I.A. No.78 of 2025 in O.P. No.91 of
2021 passed by the Family Court cum III Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Nalgonda.
3. The revision petitioner herein is the respondent in the
original petition filed under Section 13(1)(ia) of Hindu Marriage
Act r/w Section 7 of Family Courts Act.
4. While so, the respondent has filed an interlocutory
application under Section 139 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
praying the Hon'ble Court to reopen the evidence by recalling PW-
1 for further cross-examination in the O.P. No.91 of 2021.
5. Petitioner contends that, the respondent herein had filed the
subject O.P No. 91 of 2021 by making false allegations and
suppressing material facts; that pending the subject OP the
respondent performed another marriage on 28.08.2024; and that the
petitioner had lodged a compliant with the concerned police who
have registered a case vide FIR No.185/2024.
6. Petitioner further contends that since, the above acts of the
respondent are subsequent to the closing of evidence of PW1, the
underlying interlocutory application was filed and the trial court
without appreciating the facts in correct perspective had dismissed
the underlying application by order dated 28.01.2025.
7. Per Contra, the learned Standing Counsel for
respondent/petitioner submitted that, the O.P. No. 91 of 2021 was
reserved for orders on 06.06.2024, but unfortunately the trial Court
could not pass orders as the concerned presiding officer had
proceeded on leave; and that the petitioner taking advantage of the
circumstance, had filed the underlying interlocutory application on
23.01.2025 which course of action adopted by the petitioner is not
permissible in the eye of law.
8. Thus, the mute point for consideration in the present revision
is, whether the petitioner is entitled to maintain the underlying
interlocutory application after the completion of arguments and the
case being reserved for orders.
9. It is trite law that, under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Civil
Procedure Code, when a suit or case is reserved for judgment after
conclusion of arguments, a witness cannot be recalled (See:T.
Ramachandra Murthy v. K. Rama Murthy 1)
10. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v.
Mohindra Kumar2 has held that, if the entirety of the "hearing" of
the suit has been completed and the Court being competent to
pronounce the judgment then and there, adjourns the suit merely
for the purpose of pronouncing judgment under Order XX Rule 1,
there is clearly no adjournment of "the hearing" of the suit, for
there is nothing more to be heard in the suit.
11. In the light of the above position of law, this Court is of the
view that the impugned order passed by the Court below
dismissing the underlying interlocutory application does not suffer
from any error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of
AIR 1980 AP 265
AIR 1964 SC 993
its supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition fails and is
dismissed.
13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall
stand closed. No order as to costs.
___________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: 07.03.2025
VSV/MRKR
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 362 of 2025
07.03.2025
VSR/MRKR
