1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1096 & 1098 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the Civil Revision Petitions arising out of common order, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Civil Revision Petitions by way of a Common Order. 2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 28.01.2025 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.168 and 169 of 2023 in Original Suit No.25 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District, whereby the applications filed to re-open the suit and to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination were allowed, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The facts of the case that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petitions are as follows: i) The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and respondent herein is the defendant in O.S.No.25 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali. ii) The petitioner herein filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 14.10.2006. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 30.12.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.29 of 2018 before the Principal District Judge, Nellore. The Principal District Judge, Nellore by judgment and decree dated 2 25.02.2022, partly allowed the appeal without costs setting aside the judgment and decree dated 30.12.2017 and remanded the matter to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of the suit afresh by providing an opportunity to both parties to lead further evidence by giving finding in respect of admissibility of Ex.A1 sale agreement in respect of stamp duty etc with a further direction to dispose of the suit within a period of three months. iii) Pursuant thereto, the agreement of sale was sent for impounding to the District Registrar of Assurance, SPSR Nellore District. The said authority, by order dated 12.12.2022, directed payment of deficit stamp duty and penalty, which was accordingly paid by the plaintiff. Thereafter the trial Court posted the suit for arguments. iv) At this stage, the defendant filed I.A.Nos.168 and 169 of 2023 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking to reopen the suit and recall P.W.1 for further cross examination on the aspects of the plaintiff’s financial capacity for purchasing the plaint schedule property, passing of consideration, possession and enjoyment of the property and the non-issuance of legal notice prior to filing of the suit. A counter has been filed opposing the applications contending that there is no need to reopen and recall P.W.1 and prayed to dismiss the said applications. v) After hearing both parties, the trial Court, by way of common docket order dated 28.01.2025, allowed the said Interlocutory Applications. Aggrieved by the said common order, the plaintiff has filed the present Civil Revision Petitions. 3 4. Heard Sri Siva Prasad Reddy Venati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chetan Ponnuru, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revisions and the counter affidavit filed before the trial Court, submitted that as the respondent/defendant had reported no further evidence, the matter was posted for arguments. The interlocutory applications were filed at the belated stage seeking to reopen the suit and recall P.W.1 for further cross examination. He further contended that the trial Court erroneously entertained and allowed the said applications. He further contended that the trial Court failed to consider that the defendant did not furnish any valid or satisfactory reasons for not cross examine P.W.1 on the aspects now sought to be raised at the earliest point of time. A mere statement that, upon perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, the defendant came to know that he failed to cross examine with regard to points of capacity of P.W.1 for purchase of plaint schedule property, passing consideration, possession and enjoyment of P.W.1 of the plaint schedule property and non-issuance of legal notice prior to filing of the suit were not covered in cross examination, is not a sufficient ground to reopen the evidence. He further submitted that the said applications were filed only with an intention to protract the proceedings and delay the disposal of the suit. If the impugned order is allowed to subsist, it would cause prejudice to the petitioner. It was further contended that the relief sought in the said 4 interlocutory applications are beyond the purview of revisional order. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions setting aside the order of the trial Court. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contended that while passing the remand order, the Appellate Court had granted an opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence by giving finding in respect of admissibility of Ex.A1 sale agreement in respect of stamp duty. He further submitted that the expression ‘further evidence’ would indicate the right of cross examination as well. In the said circumstances, the respondent has rightly filed the present applications and the trial Court has also rightly allowed the same. He further contended that when an opportunity was specifically given by the appellate Court, the respondent has only utilized the said opportunity. He further submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner, if the applications are allowed and even otherwise any inconvenience or prejudice, if any, could be compensated by imposing costs, but should not result in shutting out evidence. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma1, wherein it is held that “It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand maid of justice and therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 5 Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself.” 7. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (dead) through legal representatives and others2 while considering the decision in K.K.Veluswamy v. N.Palanisamy [(2011) 11 SCC 275] and reiterating the legal principles laid down therein, held that “the settled legal position under Order 18 Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC being thus very clear, the impugned orders passed by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court to recall a witness at the instance of the respondent ‘for further elaboration on the left out points’ is wholly impermissible in law.” He further submitted that the inherent power of the Court cannot be invoked to fill up lacuna in the evidence already adduced. He further contended that reopening the evidence for the purpose of curing deficiencies in the case is impermissible and the plea that no prejudice would be caused to either party is also not a valid ground to invoke Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC. He further submitted that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is discretionary in nature, the same has to be exercised sparingly and with caution. Hence prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions. 8. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 2 (2016) 11 Supreme Court Cases 296 6 9. It is not in dispute that the suit was initially decreed and in the appeal, the matter was remanded by the Appellate Court with a specific direction to the trial Court to dispose of the suit afresh by affording an opportunity to both parties to adduce further evidence, particularly in respect of the admissibility of Ex.A1 agreement of sale with reference to stamp duty. It is also evident that pursuant to the remand, the document was impounded and necessary stamp duty and penalty were paid, thereafter the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, the respondent/defendant filed I.A. Nos.168 and 169 of 2023 seeking reopening of the suit and recall of P.W.1 for further cross-examination on certain aspects including financial capacity of the plaintiff, passing of consideration, possession and enjoyment, and issuance of legal notice prior to filing of the suit. The said applications were allowed by the trial Court, which is under challenge in the present Civil Revision Petitions. 10. The main contention of the petitioner is that the applications were filed at a belated stage only to fill up lacunas in the evidence and to protract the proceedings, and that no sufficient explanation was offered for not cross- examining P.W.1 on the said aspects earlier. It is further contended that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC cannot be exercised to enable a party to cure deficiencies in its case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that in view of the remand order passed by the Appellate Court granting liberty to adduce further evidence, the applications 7 were rightly filed and allowed, and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner as any inconvenience can be compensated by costs. 11. It is a well settled principle, as laid down in the above decisions, that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC is purely discretionary and is to be exercised sparingly, only in exceptional circumstances, and not for filling up lacunas in evidence or for re-arguing the case. At the same time, procedural law being the handmaid of justice, the Court may permit limited recall of witnesses, where it is necessary to meet the ends of justice, provided it does not result in undue prejudice or delay. 12. In the present case, the Appellate Court, while remanding the matter, has specifically directed the trial Court to record a finding with respect to the admissibility of Ex.A1 agreement of sale in relation to stamp duty and to permit both parties to adduce further evidence for that limited purpose. The scope of remand is therefore confined to the said aspect only. The trial Court failed to appreciate the purport of the remand. The remand order granted an opportunity only to the extent specified therein and the trial Court was not permitted to allow the parties to lead evidence or consider issues beyond the scope of remand. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion and dictum laid down in the decision, permitting recall of P.W.1 for cross-examination on issues such as 8 financial capacity, passing of consideration, possession and enjoyment, and issuance of legal notice are the matters which go beyond the scope of the remand, is impermissible. However, the opportunity granted by the Appellate Court to adduce further evidence insofar as it relates to Ex.A1 and the issue of stamp duty, shall remain intact. 14. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are partly allowed and the common order of the trial Court, insofar as it permits reopening of the entire evidence and recall of P.W.1 for cross-examination on all issues, is set aside. However, it is made clear that the liberty granted by the Appellate Court in its remand order, limited to the issue of admissibility of Ex.A1 agreement of sale with reference to stamp duty and consequential evidence thereon, shall remain undisturbed and the trial Court shall proceed strictly in accordance with the scope of remand. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 08.04.2026 MP 9 238 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1096 & 1098 of 2025 08.04.2026 MP