IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1702 and 1710 of 2025 APHC010349952025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1702 of 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Common Order dated 16.05.2025 in I.A.No.342 of 2025 in O.S.No.78 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Anaparthi, East Godavari District. Between: Boddula Siva Prakash, S/o. Siva Surya Venkateswara Rao, aged about 33 years, R/o. D.No.3-105, Near Ramalayam, Raja Veedhi, Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagarm Mandal and District. ...Petitioner/ Petitioner/Defendant AND 1. Sathi Satya Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, aged about 38 years, R/o. Thota Mahendrawada Village, A.P.T.D.M.C, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District. % 2. Pulugurtha Surya Bhagavan, S/o. Narasimha Rao, aged about 35 Years, R/o. Arthamuru Village, Alamuru Court Limits, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District. i ...Respondents/ Respondents/Plaintiffs lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.78 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Anaparthi, pending disposal of above C.R.P. : Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the Respondents: Sri VV N Narayana Rao APHC010349982025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1710of 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the Common Order dated 16.05.2025 in I.A.No.343 of 2025 in O.S.No.78 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Anaparthi, East Godavari District. Between: Boddula Siva Prakash, S/o. Siva Surya Venkateswara Rao, aged about 33 years, R/o. D.No.3-105, Near Ramalayam, Raja Veedhi, Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagarm Mandal and District. ...Petitioner/ Petitioner/Defendant AND m ■ 1. Sathi Satya Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. Venkata Subba Reddy, aged about 38 years, R/o. Thota Mahendrawada Village, A.P.T.D.M.C, Anaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District. 2. Pulugurtha Surya Bhagavan, S/o. Narasimha Rao, aged about 35 years, R/o. Arthamuru Village, Alamuru Court Limits, Mandapeta Mandal, East Godavari District. I ...Respondents/ Respondents/Plaintiffs IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.78 of 2020 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Anaparthi, pending disposal of above C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail Counsel for the Respondents: Sri VV N Narayana Rao The Court made the following Common Order: 1 APHC010349952025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 1702 and 1710 of 2025 i C.R.P.No.1702 of 2025 Between: I.Boddula Siva Prakash, Aged About 33 Years Raja Veedhi, Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagarm Mandal & District. S/o. Siva. Surya Venkateswara Rao R/o. D.No.3-105, Near Ramalayam ...PETITIONER AND Venkata Subba Reddy, Aged about 38 Years, R/o. Thota Mahendrawada Village, A.P.T.D.M.C, Ariaparthi Mandal, East Godavari District. 2.Pulugurtha Surya Bhagavan, S/o. Narasimha Rao, Aged About 35 Years, Mandal, East Godavari District. I.Sathi Satya Srinivasa Reddy, S/o. R/o. Arthamuru Village, Alamuru Court Limits, Mandapeta ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner; I.Mr.SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondent(S): I.Mr.V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO l m 2 The Court made the following Common Order: The petitioner / defendant aggrieved by a Common Order dated 16.05.2025 in I.A.No.342 of 2025 and I.A.No.343 of 2025 in O.S.No.78 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthy, filed these ' Revision Petitions. i The respondents / plaintiffs filed the said suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 18,00,000/- and interest thereon on the foot of a Promissory Note dated 07.01.2018 stated to have been executed by the petitioner / defendant, who is j contesting the matter by filing the written statement. After the evidence on the side of the plaintiffs was completed and the matter is posted for the evidence on the side of defendant, seeking to reopen the matter and to recall P.W.1 for 2. cross examination, the petitioner / defendant filed the above said petitions. 3. The respondents / plaintiffs filed counter, contested the matter and the learned^Trial Court dismissed the said applications. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the order under challenge is not sustainable as the learned Trial court failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by considering the relief sought for in a proper perspective. He submits that the opinion expressed by the learned Trial Court that the applications in question were filed to fill up lacuna / cover up the omissions, is not just or tenable and that reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K.Velusamy v. N.Palanisamy\ is misplaced. He ^(2011) Ilf see 275 3 submits that the matter is still at the stage of recording evidence and' immediately after evidence on the side of the plaintiff was completed, the present applications were filed before recording the evidence of defendant’s witnesses. He submits that in such circumstances, no prejudice would be caused’ to the respondents / plaintiffs and further it would help the learned Trial Court in disposal of the matter judiciously. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the order under challenge and allow the I.As., in the interest of justice. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents / plaintiffs made submissions to sustain the order passed by the learned Trial Court. He submits that the suit was filed long back in the year 2020, the matter was adjourned at the instance of the petitioner / defendant on several occasions and having cross examined the respondents / plaintiffs’ witnesses at length, the petitioner / defendant filed the present applications only with a view to fill up the lacuna and to drag on the matter without any bonafides. He submits that the learned Trial Court while recording cogent reasons, had rightly exercised the discretion vested in it and as such, the order under challenge warrants no interference. He submits that there are no merits, much less valid grounds justifying the interference by this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 6. i 4 On an appreciation of the rival submissions, the only point that arises for adjudication is whether the impugned common order warrants interference, in the facts and circumstances of the case? 7. At the outset, it may be relevant to note'that the applications in question were filed when the matter is posted for evidence on defendant’s side. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the reason for recalling P.W.1 is specifically stated. It may be pertinent to mention that the affidavit was signed by the petitioner / defendant but curiously the details of his father were mentioned. It appears to be a typographical mistake. Be that as it may. 8. In the present case, it is not as if the evidence was closed long back and matter is at the stage of arguments. K.K.Velusamy referred to supra, is a , case where an application to reopen / recall the witnesses was filed after arguments were concluded. Such a situation is not present in the instant case. Be that as it may. As the petitioner / defendant intends to cross examine P.W.1 on the specific aspect, which is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., i.e., about the alleged subsequent payments made by the petitioner / defendant, the cross examination of P.W.1 on that specific aspect alone would not, in the considered opinion of this Court, amounts to filling up of lacuna, and no prejudice would be caused to the respondents / plaintiffs. Further, it aids the. Court in just disposal of the suit. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the said aspect and therefore, the impugned order warrants interference. 9. 5 0 i-' 10. Accordingly, the orders under challenge are set aside and the I.As., in question are allowed. The learned Trial Court shall fix a specific date for cross examination of P.W.1 only on the aspect of alleged payments made by the petitioner / defendant as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the • I.A.No.342 of 2025 and complete cross examination on the said date. P.W.1 shall make himself available for cross examination on the date fixed by the learned Trial Court. It is made clear that if the petitioner / defendant fails to cross examine P.W.1 on the said date, the learned Trial Court shall close the evidence of P.W.1 and proceed to record the evidence on the defendant’s side. The point is answered accordingly. 11. The Revision Petitions are accordingly disposed of with the above directions. No order as to costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. Sd/-M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Civil Judge’s Court (Junior Division), Anaparthi District. 2. One CC to Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri VV N Narayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies East Godavari TK sree HIGH COURT DATED:14/08/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP Nos.1702 & 1710 of 2025 iS 17 SEP 2025 m ^ . Current Section ^ DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS