APHC010086482023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 425 and 426 of 2023 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 425/2023 Between: 1. GULIVENDULA KANNABABU @ KANNARAO, S/O SANKARA RAO, HINDU,AGED 42 YEARS R/O D.NO.50-72-1. 2ND FLOOR. NEAR RADHAKRISHNA TEMPLE, SEETHAMPETA. VISAKHAPATNAM-16 ...PETITIONER AND 1. KANCHUBOYINA APPA RAO, SIO RAMULU. HINDU AGED 45 YEARS, R/O AT D.NO.31-35-22, LAKSHMI NILAVAAM, VIVEKANANDA COLONY, ALLIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 2. BANTUPALLI VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O LATE SATVANARAYANA, HINDU R/O D.NO.50-72-1, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR RADHAKRISHNA TEMPLE, SEETHAMPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM-16 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the suit in OS No.1030/2016 on the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam by set aside the common order dt.10-02-2023 passed IA.No.8 and 9/2023 by allowing the CRP for reopen and recall the PW 1 for cross examination in the suit as prayed for pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the certified copy of the order dt.10-02-2023 relating the IA.No.8/23 and 9/23 in OS.No.1030/2016 on the file of the VII Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam as the down loaded copy of the order is herewith for the present and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings relating to the suit in OS No.1030/2016 on the file of the VII Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the main CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SVK SANDEEP KANCHUBOYINA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 426/2023 Between: 1. GULIVENDULA KANNABABU @ KANNARAO, S/O SANKARA RAO, HINDU,AGED 42 YEARS R/O D.NO.50-72-1, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR RADHAKRISHNA TEMPLE, SEETHAMPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM-16 ...PETITIONER AND 1. KANCHUBOYINA APPA RAO, S/O RAMULU, HINDU AGED 45 YEARS, R/O AT D.NO.31-35-22, LAKSHMI NILAYAAM, VIVEKANANDA COLONY, ALLIPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM 4 2. BANTUPALLI VIJAYAKUMAR, S/O LATE SATYANARAYANA, HINDU R/O D.NO.50-72-1, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR RADHAKRISHNA TEMPLE, SEETHAMPETA, VISAKHAPATNAM-16 ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the suit in OS No.1030/2016 on the file of the file of the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhpatnam by set aside the common order dt.10-02-2023 passed in I.A.No.8 and 9/2023 by allowing the CRP for reopen and recall the P.W.1 for cross examination in the suit as prayed for pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the certified copy of the order dt.10-02-2023 relating the IA no.8/23 and IA.No.9/23 in OS No.1030/2016 on the file of the VII Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam as the down loaded copy of the order is herewith for the present and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings relating to the suit in OS No.1030/2016 on the file of the VII Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam pending disposal of the main CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V ESWARAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SVK SANDEEP KANCHUBOYINA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER The 1st defendant in the suit filed the above two revisions against the common order dated 10.02.2023 in I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2023 in O.S.No.1030 of 2016 on the file of VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The 1st respondent herein, being the plaintiff, filed the suit O.S.No.1030 of 2016 for recovery of an amount against two defendants, the revision petitioner herein and the 2nd respondent. The suit stands posted to 05.01.2023 for arguments of the defendants. At that juncture, the 1st defendant filed the aforementioned I.A.No.8 of 2023 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the suit and I.A.No.9 of 2023 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.As, it was pleaded that the suit stands posted to 05.01.2023 for arguments of the defendants. P.W.1 filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination, and the suit was posted to 16.12.2022 for cross-examination; however, the counsel for the defendants fell sick and was out of station, due to which he could not cross-examine P.W.1 and requested the Court to reopen and recall P.W.1. 4. A counter was filed by the plaintiff. It was contended, inter alia, that the suit was filed on 07.08.2013. The plaintiff filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination on 01.11.2019, and Exs.A1 & A2 were marked. Despite several adjournments, the defendants failed to cross-examine P.W.1 and the suit was posted for judgment on 23.01.2020. On 28.01.2020, the defendants filed I.A.Nos.45 and 46 of 2020 under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC. Those applications were allowed on 25.02.2020, and the suit was reopened for cross-examination of P.W.1. The defendants took several adjournments and failed to cross- examine P.W.1, and hence, the cross-examination of P.W.1 was treated as NIL on 22.11.2021, and the suit was posted for further evidence. On 10.03.2022, the plaintiff reported no further evidence, and hence, the suit was posted for defence evidence. The defendants, after taking several adjournments, failed to adduce evidence, and hence, the suit was posted for arguments. The plaintiff submitted his arguments on 04.05.2022, and the suit was posted to 06.05.2022 for the defendants’ arguments. On 06.05.2022, the defendants filed I.A.Nos.308 and 309 of 2022, and they were allowed conditionally, directing the defendants to pay costs and cross-examine P.W.1. The defendants failed to cross-examine P.W.1 and requested time, and hence, the Court on 16.12.2022 closed the cross-examination of P.W.1 and posted the suit for arguments. Again on 23.12.2022, the plaintiff submitted his arguments, and the suit was posted for defence arguments. At that juncture, the 1st defendant filed I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2023. 5. The trial court, on consideration of the entire record, dismissed the applications by common order dated 10.02.2023. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the change of vakalat, the applications were filed to reopen the matter and recall P.W.1; however, the trial Court failed to consider the same. 7. The point for consideration is: Whether the common order dated 10.02.2023, assailed in the revisions, suffers from any illegality? Page 6 of 7 8. As seen from the pleadings and the order of the trial Court, initially, the defendants filed I.A.Nos.45 and 46 of 2020 under Order XVIII Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC to reopen and recall P.W.1, and they were allowed on 25.02.2020. The defendants failed to cross-examine P.W.1. Again, the defendants filed I.A.Nos.308 and 309 of 2022 and the said applications were allowed conditionally. Again, the defendants failed to cross-examine P.W.1. Thereafter, I.A.Nos.8 and 9 of 2023 were filed, when the suit was posted for arguments. In fact, on earlier occasions, the suit was posted for arguments and at that juncture I.As. were filed, and they were allowed. 9. The conduct of the defendants, as seen from the material available on record, that the defendants keep on filing applications one after another. The defendants failed to avail the opportunity. The series of events referred to supra, the defendants keep on filing applications to protract the litigation without any bona fides. 10. A learned single judge of the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sarakaram Satyanarayana Vs. Kandregula Jagan Mohan Venkata Reddam Naidu1, observed as follows: “6. The procedural safeguards provided in the CPC to protect interests of bona fide litigants are being abused by the dishonest litigants to such an extent that they are proving to be an obstruction in dispensation of justice. The unscrupulous litigants, such as the petitioner, are exploiting, nay, are allowed to exploit the liberal provisions in the Code, such as Order IX Rule 9 and Order IX Rule 13. While unwittingly such provisions are proving to be a boon for such litigants, they have become a bane for persons approaching 1 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 243 : (2017) 5 ALD 412 : (2017) 5 ALT 509 courts with bona fide claims and genuine grievances. The public criticism of courts for long pendency of cases overlooks the contributory role of litigants, ably advised and supported by some lawyers. The basic ingredient of integrity is expected of members of bar too, as much as it is expected of members of the bench. The chariot of administration of justice cannot move forward smoothly with the desired pace, if its wheels are deliberately clogged by delay tactics and unfair methods. The litigants and the lawyers representing them being equal partners in justice dispensation need to play a catalyst role, instead of playing a role of obstructionist, in propelling the caravan of justice to reach its destination of fulfilling the aspirations of millions of litigant public for whom judiciary is their last resort in pursuit of justice.” 11. Given the discussion supra, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the common order passed by the trial Court, brooking the interference of this Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court does not find any merit in the above revisions, and the same are liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI PVD