APHC010349082025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1687/2025 Between: 1. POTNURU SATISH, S/O BHAVANI, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 1-102- 19/1/2, PLOT NO.182, SECTOR-V, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. PENTAKOTA RAMA SURYANARAYANA, S/o Late Ramana Govinda, aged about 56 years, R/at Door No.4-21-23, Ganesh Residency, Flat No. 102, Near Gandhi Statue lane, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam - ...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 toaggrieved by the Order dated 16.06.2025 in I.A.No.288 of 2025 in O.S.No.550 of 2018 passed by the VII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), VISAKHAPATNAM 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 all further proceedings in O.S.No.550 of 2018 on the file of VII Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.1687 & 1688 of 2025 APHC010349052025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1688/2025 Between: 1. POTNURU SATISH, S/O BHAVANI, AGED 51 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 1-102- 19/1/2, PLOT NO. 182, SECTOR-V, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM ...PETITIONER AND 1. PENTAKOTA RAMA SURYANARAYANA, S/o Late Ramana Govinda, aged about 56 years, R/at Door No.4-21-23, Ganesh Residency, Flat No. 102, Near Gandhi Statue lane, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam - ...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 toaggrieved by the Order dated 16.06.2025 in I.A.No.287 of 2025 in O.S.No.550 of 2018 passed by the VII ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), VISAKHAPATNAM 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 all further proceedings in O.S.No.550 of 2018 on the file of VII Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Visakhapatnam and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJKUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 3 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.1687 & 1688 of 2025 The Court made the following common order: The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.550 of 2018 before the learned VII Additional Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of money based on a pro note. After completion of the trial, the matter came up for arguments. At that stage, the petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, moved I.A.No.287 of 2025 and I.A.No.288 of 2025, for reopening the plaintiff’s evidence in the suit and for recalling P.W.-1, for the purpose of further cross- examination, on the ground that certain discrepancies and inconsistencies were found in the evidences of P.Ws.1 & 2. The affidavit filed in support of this application also states that certain areas of cross-examination had been left untouched and the recall of the witnesses was necessary for completing the cross-examination in this regard. 2. The Trial Court, by way of a common order, dated 16.06.2025, had dismissed both the applications. 3. As the issues raised in both the applications are one and the same, and are between the same parties in the suit, the Civil Revision Petitions, filed against these two orders, are being disposed of, by way of this common order. 4. Heard Sri P. Rajkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, in both the Civil Revision Petitions. 4 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.1687 & 1688 of 2025 5. The petitioner herein seeks recall of P.Ws.1 & 2 on the ground that certain inconsistencies and discrepancies have been observed and on the ground that the witnesses had not been properly cross-examined in relation to the means available to the plaintiff for lending the money under the pro note. 6. The Trial Judge had held that there was extensive cross- examination in relation to the financial means of the plaintiff and that witnesses cannot be recalled for the purpose of rectifying these inconsistencies and discrepancies, after their cross-examination had been completed. 7. This Court is in accord with the said observation of the Trial Court that the witnesses cannot be recalled for the purpose of clearing inconsistencies and discrepancies, which are alleged to have arisen out of the cross-examination conducted earlier. At best, or at worst, such discrepancies or inconsistencies could be relied upon by the parties in the course of their arguments. Except this concession, there cannot be any right for the parties to recall witnesses for rectifying any discrepancies or defects in the cross- examination. Further, the Trial Court has specifically taken the view that there was elaborate cross-examination of these witnesses on the means of the plaintiff by raising questions relating to business, earning capacity and income tax particulars of the plaintiff. 5 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.1687 & 1688 of 2025 8. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said orders of the Trial Court and the present Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 18.07.2025 MJA 6 RRR, J C.R.P.Nos.1687 & 1688 of 2025 139 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 1687 & 1688 of 2025 18.07.2025 MJA