APHC010293682023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [3459] PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1747 OF 2023 Between: Mahapatruni Kondala Rao --- Petitioner and Polipalli Tata Rao --- Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Karukola Simhachalam Counsel for the respondent : Sri Harinath Reddy Soma The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner seeking to set-aside the order, dated 13.02.203, passed in I.A. No.21 of 2023 in O.S. No.916 of 2015 by the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissed the Application filed by the petitioner/defendant, under Order XVIII Rule 17 R/w. Section 151 of C.P.C., praying to recall PW.1 for his cross- examination. JS,J CRP No.1747/2023 2 2. The petitioner herein was the defendant and the respondent herein was the plaintiff before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a Suit in O.S. No.916 of 2015 against the petitioner/defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,89,050/- on the strength of the promissory note, dated 19.11.2013. When the issues were framed and the Suit is at the stage of adducing evidence of the respective parties, respondent/plaintiff filed I.A. No.267 of 2022 to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to record his evidence at his home due to his ill-health. Accordingly, the said Application was allowed, on merits. Subsequently, on 14.10.2022, learned Advocate Commissioner filed his report stating that, despite issuance of notice, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant did not come forward to cross-examine PW.1 and hence cross-examination was treated as nil. When the matter was listed before the trial Court on 14.10.2022, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner, it was kept aside till 12:40 noon and posted to 04.11.2022 for further evidence of respondent/plaintiff. At this stage, the petitioner/defendant has filed I.A. No.557 of 2022 to recall PW.1 and accordingly the trial Court allowed the said Application on 09.12.2022 for JS,J CRP No.1747/2023 3 cross-examination of PW.1, at his home, by the Advocate Commissioner and posted the case to 06.01.2023 for filing his report. On 06.01.2023 as the petitioner/defendant was called absent, no representation on his behalf till 04:00 p.m. Batta was also not paid as per the office note for issuance of Commissioner’s Warrant, the trial Court posted the case to 20.01.2023 for further evidence of respondent/plaintiff. On 20.01.2023 when learned counsel for both the parties are present and chief- examination affidavit of PW.2 was filed on 03.02.2023 the petitioner/defendant came up with this Application, enclosing medical certificate, dated 09.12.2022. 4. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the material available on record, the trial Court dismissed the Application holding that the petitioner/defendant appears to have been protracting the litigation without cross-examining PW.1 by relying on a decision of this Court in Sarakaram Satyanarayana v. Kandregula Jagan Mohan Venkat Ratnam Naidu1. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has fair chances of succeeding in the Suit and a last opportunity may be given to the petitioner/defendant to cross- examine PW.1 by imposing certain time frame. 1 2017 (5) ALT 509 JS,J CRP No.1747/2023 4 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, contends that the Suit is of the year 2015 and the petitioner/defendant has been succeeding in protracting the litigation by filing one or the other Application and finally prayed to direct the trial Court to dispose of the Suit itself at an early date. 7. The order of the trial Court shows that despite granting several adjournments, the defendant did not turn up to cross-examine PW.1. Be that as it may, considering the fact that amount covered by the promissory note is huge i.e., Rs.4,25,000/- and the defendant in order to establish his case has to cross-examine PW.1, this Civil Revision Petition is to be allowed in the interest of justice by imposing certain costs. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting-aside the order, dated 13.02.203, passed in I.A. No.21 of 2023 in O.S. No.916 of 2015 by the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Further, the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam is directed to recall PW.1 for cross-examination by the defendant on the condition of his paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff and to complete his cross-examination on the same day. JS,J CRP No.1747/2023 5 Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE SUMATHI JAGADAM Date: 02.04.2025 DSH