W' APHC010116352025 SMS IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI PRADESH FRIDAY. THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT honourable SRI JUSTICE NINALA CLVIL REVISiOM PFTITION ND JAYASURYA 640 OF 209!^ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 03-02-2025 aggrieved by the passed in IA.No.1723 of 2024 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge Order and Decree dated OS.No.42 of 2022 in (Junior Division) Sattenapalli. Between; Challagundia Lakshmaiah, Cultivation, R/o. NGO ' Narasaraopet Town and Mandal S/o. Anantharamaiah Aged 64 years, Occ , Plot No. 304, Colony, 1st line, Srinivasa Towers Palnadu District. ...Petitioner/Defendant AND Kancheti Sambasiva Rao S/o. Sankaraiah, Aged 60 Gudipudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal years, Occ Cultivation, R/o. Palnadu District. ...Respondent/Plaintiff jA NO: 1 OF 9notz Petition under Section in the affidavit filed i 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated Court may be pleased to 2022 on the file of the the petition, the High grant stay of all further ^ proceedings in OS.No.42 of Division), Sattenapalli Principal Civil Judge (Junior ^ mam Civil Revision Petition. ' Pending disposal of the Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent; The Court made the following SRI. VENKATA RAIMA RAO ■ SRI. IM CHALAPATI RAO KOTA order; APHC010116352025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] Wl FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 640 OF 2025 Between: 1.CHALLAGUNDLA LAKSHMAIAH, CHALLAGUNDIA LAKSHMAIAH, S/0. ANANTHARAMAIAH AGED 64 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, R/0. NGO COLONY, 1ST LINE, SRINIVASA TOWERS, PLOT NO. 304, NARASARAOPET TOWN AND MANDAL, PALNADU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.KANCHETI SAMBASIVA RAO Kancheti Sambasiva Rao, S/o. Sankaraiah, Aged 60 years, Occ.Cultivation, R/o. Gudipudi Village, Sattenapalli Mandal, Palnadu District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA Counsel for the Respondent: 1.M CHALAPATI RAO ms 2 m The Court made the following ORDER: The Revision petitioner-defendant in O.S.No.42 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sattenapalli, aggrieved by the ord.ers dated 03.02.2025 in I.A.No.1723 of 2024, filed the present revision petition. 2) The respondent-plaintiff filed the said Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @18% suit seeking a decree for a sum of per annum thereon, on the foot of a promissory note stated to have been executed by the revision petitioner. Before the trial Court written statement was filed denying the suit transaction and a plea was also taken After conclusion of evidence of the that the suit promissory note is fabricated. plaintiff's witnesses and the matter is posted for evidence on the defendant's side, I.A.No.1723 of 2024 was filed seeking to recall PW 1 on the premise that during the cross-examination some important questions with regard to transaction and place of t recalling of PW 1 is essential in controversy in the suit. The respondent-plaintiff opposed the The learned trial Judge after considering the matter dismissed the said I.A. by a reasoned order, which is impugned in the present execution of the promissory note were not asked and to decide the issue i said application by filing counter. revision. 3) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court went wrong in dismissing the application without considering the matter in a proper perspective. He submits that due to lack of complete information at the time of cross-examination, certain crucial questions were not put to PW 1 and therefore application seeking to recall PW 1 the was filed and the revision Petitioner acted diligently by filing the application even before the examination of witnesses on the defendant's side. He'submits that the learned trial Court instead of exercising the 3 h discretion vested in it and appreciating that by allowing the application no prejudice would be caused to the respondent-plaintiff, had erroneously dismissed the application in question opining that the petitioner-defendant is resorting to delaying tactics and the same is not sustainable. He submits that the learned trial Court ought to have given one opportunity to the petitioner., at least by imposing costs in the interest of justice. He also submits that the I.A. in question may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order and a date be fixed for further cross-examination of PW 1, on some terms as may be deemed appropriate. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit made his submissions. He contends that the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the above mentioned I.A. are not tenable, in as much as PW 1 was cross-examined at length and the relevant aspects with regard to the execution etc., of the suit promissory note were elicited. He submits that in fact, the cross-examination of the plaintiff’s witnesses was conducted after taking adjournments and concluded only after imposition of costs by the learned trial Court. He submits that the conclusion of the learned trial Court in the said circumstances that the application is filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings cannot be found fault with nor be viewed as erroneous exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court for the State of Telangana in Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy and Another v Kaling Corporation, New Delhi and Another^ learned counselseeks dismissal of the revision petition. 4) ^ 2025 (2) ALD 528 (TS) (DB) 4 5) On an appreciation of the rival consideration is “Whether the order under challenge facts and circumstances of the case?" contentions, the point that arises for warrants interference in the 6) As per the submissions made by the learned reasons stated in the affidavit filed i in the suit, was sought to be recalled for further the transaction and place of execution of the chief examination affidavit PW 1 stated the counsel for the petitioner and the in support of I.A.No.1723 of 2024, PW 1, plaintiff cross-examination with reference to suit promissory note (Ex.A1). In his place of execution of Ex.A1 and in the cross-examination questions were put to PW .1 with regard to Ex.A1 and of Its execution which need not be referred to herein. Suffice to state that the purpose , on a perusal of the deposition of PW 1, the purpose for recalling the said witness appears to be not tenable and the application is filed only to protract the matter In Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel national Police Academy Division Bench of the Telanga case referred to supra, the learned ^ High Court, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bagai Constructions, through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai v Gupta Building Material Store^, na was not inclined to interfere with the orders of the trial Court, rejected the applications seeking re-examination of the witnesses. Supreme Court of India in para-15 opined as follows: reopening of evidence and In Bagai Constructions case, the Hon’ble 15. After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the CPC It IS desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and a reasonable time. ■ constantly endeavour followed by arguments and decision thereon within This Court has repeatedly held that Courts should 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, reopening and recalling are interim applications for adjournments, ' 2013 (4) ALD 3 (SC) = (2013) 14 SCC 1 5 measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered.” Considering the submissions made and in the light of the conclusions arrived at supra, this Court see no plausible and acceptable reasons in the present case to allow the prayer for recalling of PW 1. The application in question, as opined by the learned trial Court, obviously intended to drag on the proceedings. 7) 8) In the aforesaid view of the mater, this Court see no reason to interfere with the orders under challenge in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9) Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. 10) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also dismissed. stand A ^ASIRAO achari //true COPY// REGISTRAR section officer To. The Principal Civil 3. One CC tn c:. . Advocate CC to Sn.MChalapatiRao Advocate District. fOPUCJ fOPUCJ 4. Two CD Copies nm HIGH COURT DATED:04/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 640 OF 2025 ^ 19 AUG 2025 )S X SectiopxV]^ \3£S£4I£^&^ DISMISSING THE CRP