APHC010385252024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1978/2024 Between: 1. M. USHA RANI, W/O.M JAYARAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. D.N0.4-1977/2B, DURGA NAGAR COLONY, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT.(REP. BY ITS GPA HOLDER, M. JAYARAM NAIDU, S/O. ANJANEYULU NAIDU, R/O.D.N0.4-1977/2B, DURGA NAGAR COLONY, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT.) ...PETITIONER AND 1. P ANAND KUMAR JAIN, S/o B PREMCHAND, R/o.D.No.9-484, JANDA STREET, CHITTOOR TOWN, CHITTOOR 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 to set aside the order dated 24-7-2024 in l.A No. 43 of 2024 in I.A.No. 44 of 2023 in O.S No. 23 of 2018 passed by the VIII Addl. District Judge, Chittoor and consequently allow I.A No. 43 of 2024 in I.A No. 44 of 2023 in O.S No. 23 of 2018 on the file of VIII Addl. District Judge, Chittoor. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VIVEK Counsel for the Respondent: 1. K V L NARASIMHA RAO The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1978 of 2024 ORDER: The present civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 24.07.2024 made in I.A.No.43 of 2024 in I.A.No.44 of 2023 in O.S.No.23 of 2018 on the file of the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Chittoor. 2. The petitioner is defendant in the suit and the respondent/plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.23 of 2018 for recovery of an amount of Rs.36,03,334/- based on promissory note, dated 20.05.2016 executed by the petitioner/defendant. The petitioner/defendant filed written statement in the suit. When the matter was posted for cross-examination of PW.1 on 13.02.2023, the petitioner did not choose to cross-examine PW.1. Thereafter, based on GPA executed by the petitioner, her husband filed an application vide I.A.No.44 of 2023 under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC praying to recall PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination and the said application was allowed vide order dated 21.02.2024 on condition to complete the cross-examination of PW.1 on 12.03.2024 but neither the defendant/petitioner nor her counsel were present and did not cross- examine PW.1 on 12.03.2024 and therefore, the trial Court closed the evidence of PW.1. Thereafter, the petitioner/defendant filed the present application vide I.A.No.43 of 2024 under Order 9 Rule 9 of 3 CPC seeking to restore I.A.No.44 of 2023 and the same was dismissed vide impugned order, dated 24.07.2024. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 12.03.2024, the petitioner could not present before the trial Court as she was suffering with ill- health. It is further case of the petitioner that on the said date, the counsel for the defendant/petitioner was not present as he went to Hyderabad for training programme. Hence, their absence on the said date is neither willful nor wanton therefore the present application is filed to recall PW.1 for cross-examination. 4. On the other hand, the respondent filed counter affidavit stating that the petitioner appointed her husband as GPA Holder, who filed earlier application vide I.A.No.44 of 2023 to recall PW.1 for cross- examination and the said application was allowed by order, dated 21.02.2024 on condition that the petitioner to complete the cross- examination of PW.1 on his appearance on 12.03.2024, failing which, the application shall stand dismissed. On the said date, though the plaintiff/respondent was present, the petitioner did not choose to cross- examine. Though it is stated in the affidavit filed by the petitioner that she is taking treatment in Bangalore on that date, it is stated that, no medical evidence is placed on record in support of her contention. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the defendant and her husband were in town on the said date, despite the same, they did not 4 choose to cross-examine PW.1. Having heard the parties, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.43 of 2024 vide order, dated 24.07.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the petitioner could not present before the Court on 12.03.2024 inasmuch as she was taking treatment at Bangalore in a private hospital. Except making an averment in the affidavit filed in support of the application, no evidence is placed on record to substantiate the said contention. In the absence of any evidence, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Apart from the same, it is the case of the petitioner that her counsel also could not be present in view of the fact that he was attending sensitization of new criminal law, 2023 programme at Hyderabad, and prayed to give one more opportunity to cross-examine PW.1. 6. It is pertinent to note that earlier at the instance of petitioner, her husband filed application vide I.A.No.44 of 2023 seeking to recall PW.1 for cross-examination. The said application was allowed by order, dated 21.02.2024 on condition to complete cross-examination of PW.1 while posting the matter to 12.03.2024, failing which, the application i.e., I.A.No.44 of 2023 shall stand dismissed. Despite the conditional order was passed, for the reasons best known to the petitioner/defendant, there was no representation on the said date. Apart from the same, the cross-examination of PW.1 was closed 5 earlier and on application made by the husband of the petitioner, PW.1 was recalled. Furthermore, on perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is conspicuously silent as to why the petitioner’s husband was not present on the said date. Further, the petitioner is not diligent in prosecuting the suit. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the arguments of the plaintiff are over in the suit and it is posted for arguments of the defendant. Therefore, at this juncture, the application filed by the petitioner cannot be entertained. 7. From the above it is clear that there are no bonafides on the part of the petitioner, and the trial Court, after considering the matter, has rightly dismissed I.A.No.43 of 2024. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the order impugned. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Date : 03.07.2025 SPP 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR Civil Revision Petition No.1978 of 2024 Date : 03.07.2025 SPP