APHC010378282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1991 OF 2024 Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Civil petition aggrieved by the Docket Endorsement in I.A.C.F No.5380 of 2024 in O.S.No.43 of 2017 dated 12-8-2024 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu, Between: Imthiyaz Ahammad, S/o Syed Jaffer, aged about 46 years Managing Director, Renati Automobiles Pvt., Ltd., Aanathapuramu town, Anantapuramu District. D.No.6-1-918, Kovur Nagar ...Petitioner/Petitioner/Defendant No. 1 AND 1. R Sreenivas Chowdary, S/o R.Saroja Naidu, aged about 40 years R/o Flat No. 102, Rajahamsa Palace, RTC Bus Stand Road, Anantapuramu town, Anantapuramu District. ...Respondent/Respondent No.l/Plaintiff 2. R Vaninath Reddy, S/o Renati Venkata Reddy, aged about 51 years. R/o Not known. ...Respondents/Respondent No.2/Defendant No.2 Sk* (R2 is not necessary) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.43 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu, pending disposal of the above Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents; SRI P V MAHESH The Court made the following order; APHC010378282024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] 1 FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1991/2024 Between: 1.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMAD, S/0 SYED JAFFER, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS MANAGING DIRECTOR, RENATI AUTOMOBILES PVT., LTD., D.NO.6-1-918, KOVUR NAGAR, AANATHAPURAMU TOWN, ANANTAPURAMU DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.R SREENIVAS CHOWDARY, S/0 R.SAROJA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/0 FLAT NO. 102, RAJAHAMSA PALACE, RTC BUS STAND ROAD, ANANTAPURAMU TOWN, DISTRICT. ANANTAPURAMU 2.R VANINATH REDDY, S/0 RENATI VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O NOT KNOWN. ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tobegs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision petition aggrieved by the Docket Endorsement in I.A.C.F No.5380 of 2024 in O.S.No.43 of 2017 dated 12-8-2024 on the file of the Honble Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu, lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 2 C.R.P.No.1991 of 2024 pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.43 of 2017 on the file of the Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu, pending disposal of the above Revision petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner; 1.PGANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.P VMAHESH The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.1991 of 2024 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant No.1, aggrieved by the Docket Endorsement in I.A.C.F. No.5380 of 2024 in O.S.No.43 of 2017, dated 12.08.2024 on the file of Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu. The petitioner before this Court is defendant No.1 in O.S.No.43 of 2017. The respondent No.1/plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.60,11,950/- basing upon a pronote dated 11.03.2015. 2. It is the case of the petitioner/defendant No.1 is that, during the course of trial, PW1 was examined through an advocate commissioner and though the petitioner raised various objections during the course of cross-examination of PW1, the advocate commissioner has placed those objections before the Court below. However, without considering the same, the cross-examination of PW1 was closed by the advocate commissioner on 18.06.2024 and on the day, the counsel for respondent No.1/plaintiff has also presented the chief-affidavit of PW2. The Court below, even without there being any application requesting the Court to appoint an advocate commissioner, suo- moto posted the matter to 03.07.2024 for cross-examination by appointing an advocate commissioner. As such, the petitioner was constrained to file an unnumbered I.A. under Section 151 CPC requesting the Court below to recall the suo-moto order passed on 18.06.2024 appointing an advocate for recording the cross-examination of PW2 and permit the 3. same commissioner 4 VSX C.R.P.No.1991 of 2024 petitioner/defendant No.1 to cross-examine PW2 before the Court instead of the advocate commissioner. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that without even numbering the said un-numbered I.A., the same was rejected by the office vide memo dated 12.08.2024, which is as under; “The matter is relating to pre 2017, in spite of number of opportunities given to the parties, they are not concluding the evidence of PW1, being it is identified matter, this Court is not inclined to recall the suo-moto order passed appointing the commissioner to record the evidence of PW1, being it is identified matter, this Court is not inclined to recall the suo-moto order passed appointing the commissioner to record the evidence of PW2. Hence, this petition is returned. ” Challenging which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. When the Civil Revision Petition came up for admission on 20.09.2024 this Court passed the following interim order: 5. “ there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.43 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu, for a period of four (4) weeks. ” Thereafter, the said interim order has been extended for a further period. 6. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, admittedly there is no application filed by the respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.1991 of 2024 appointment of an advocate commissioner to examine PW2; but, however, the Court below only on the ground that the suit belongs to 2017, has suo- moto appointed the advocate commissioner to examine PW2. It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner has raised various objections during the course of cross-examination of PW1, which were placed before the Court below by the advocate commissioner and the Court below without even answering the same, closed the evidence of PW1. As such, the request made by the petitioner/defendant No.1 for cross-examination of PW2 before the Court below seems to be genuine. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for 7. the respondents. The only request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the 8. said I.A. is to recall the suo-moto order passed by the Court below on 18.06.2024 appointing an advocate commissioner and for recording the cross- examination of PW2 and permit the petitioner to cross-examine PW2 in the Court instead of in the presence of the advocate commissioner. In such a case, the Court below ought to have passed appropriate 9. orders in the said I.A., assigning reasons for rejecting the application. However, instead of doing so, the application was not even numbered and was rejected by the office objection dated 12.08.2024. In view of the reasons assigned above and as the learned counsel for 10. the respondent No.1/plaintiff has reported no objection, the Civil Revision 6 V5,:V C.R.P.No.1991 of 2024 Petition is allowed by setting aside the office objection datedi2.08.2024 as well as the order dated 18.06.2024 suo-moto appointing the advocate commissioner to cross-examine PW2. The Court below is directed to permit the petitioner/defendant No.1 to cross-examine PW2 in the Court instead of through an advocate commissioner. However, in view of the urgency expressed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/plaintiff, as recorded by the Court below, that the suit pertains to the year 2017, the cross- examination of PW2 shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- K KASIRAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //^ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal District Judge, Anantapuramu. 2. One CC to Sri. P Ganga Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. P V Mahesh, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies MKP sree HIGH COURT DATED:29/08/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1991 OF 2024 g( I I SEP 2025 ef) X^rSIJinwtSectloD^*y ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS