APHC010296542025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3207] FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1370/2025 Between: 1. GADDA CHAKRAPANI, S/O LATE PEDA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O GANGARIAMMAPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. TALLURU VENKATA RAO, S/o Kutumba Rao, Aged about 63 years. Retired employee, R/o Tallurivari Street, Kolakaluru Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT 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 topleased to set aside the order dt 26.03.2025 in I.A.No. 92 of 2025 in O.S.No. 47 of 2023 in the court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Pleased to grant stay of suit in O.S.No. 47 of 2023 in the court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali pending the Civil Revision Petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 2 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 may be pleased to vacate the order dated 20-06-2025 passed in l.A.No.l of 2025 in C.R.P.No. 1370 of 2025 and dismiss the present petition with exemplary costs and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1371/2025 Between: 1. GADDA CHAKRAPANI, S/O LATE PEDA VENKATESWARLU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O GANGANAMMAPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. TALLURU VENKATA RAO, S/o Kutumba Rao, Aged about 63 years. Retired employee R/o Tallurivari Street, Kolakaluru Village, Tenali Mandal, Guntur District. ...RESPONDENT 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 topleased to set aside the order dt 26.03.2025 in I.A.No. 91 of 2025 in O.S.No. 47 of 2023 in the court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 Pleased to grant stay of suit in O.S.No. 47 of 2023 in the court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali pending the Civil Revision Petition and pass 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. T V SRI DEVI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. DEVI PRASAD MANGALAPURI The Court made the following: 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1370 & 1371 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.1370 of 2025 is filed against the order dated 26.03.2025 in I.A.No.92 of 2025 and C.R.P.No.1371 of 2025 is filed against the order dated 26.03.2025 in I.A.No.91 of 2025 in O.S.No.47 of 2023 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali. 2. Revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. Respondent is the plaintiff. Suit was filed for recovery of money. Plaintiff’s side evidence was closed and defendant was examined on 08.01.2025. After several adjournments, two interlocutory applications were filed by the defendant to reopen the evidence of P.W.2 for further cross examination. After hearing both sides, the trial Court dismissed the applications by order dated 26.03.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petitions are filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court failed to appreciate the scope under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of C.P.C. He further contends that the trial Court is having ample powers to reopen, recall and reexamine the witness who has already been examined at any stage of suit. He further submits that the opinion of the trail Court that no useful purpose would be served by calling P.W.2 for further cross examination is erroneous. Accordingly, he sought to set aside the order of the trial Court and to allow the Civil Revision Petitions. 5 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that these petitions are filed only to harass the plaintiff and witness and these petitions are filed after commencing the evidence of the defendant. Learned counsel further contends that the P.W.2, who is the scribe of the document, is a senior citizen and has undergone bypass surgery and as such he is not in a position to appear before the Court. Having considered all these things, the trial Court passed reasoned order and hence, interference of this Court is not required. Accordingly, he sought to dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions. 5. Having heard the submissions of the respective counsels and upon careful examination of the material available on record, it appears that plaintiff’s evidence was already closed and defendant was examined on 08.01.2025. Now the matter is posted for further evidence of the defendant. At that stage, these two applications were filed seeking to recall P.W.2 for further cross examination by reopening the plaintiff’s evidence. The trial Court having considered the record, opined that there is no such connection in between the transaction with the sister of the plaintiff with the present transaction. Nothing is suggested to P.W.1 during the cross examination about any relevancy in between the transaction covered under the suit filed by the sister of the plaintiff against the present petitioner. Accordingly, the trial Court held that no useful purpose would be served by calling up P.W.2 for further cross examination in respect of the said aspect. 6 6. On careful perusal of the order under challenge in these revisions, this Court is of the considered opinion that this trial Court has considered all aspects and passed reasoned order. In fact, no purpose will be served by calling P.W.2 for further cross examination at the stage, as both transactions are different. 7. In view of the same, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court in dismissing the two (02) interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere into the reasoned order passed by the trial Court. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date: 12.09.2025 SCS 7 149 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1370 & 1371 of 2025 Dt.12.09.2025 SCS