APHC010412852024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2178/2024 Between: 1. ALTHI APPA SIMMANNA NAIDU, S/O. LATE NEELAYYA, AGED 68 YEARS, R/O.VIMANNAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1. ALTI LAKSHMINARAYANA, S/o. Late Appa Rao, aged 60 years, R/o. Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. ...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 tobegs to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition to this Honble Court, against the Order dated 18.07.2024 in I.A. No.357 of 2024 in O.S.No.92 of 2014 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram, IA 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 may be pleased to suspend the operation of the order dated 18-7-2024 in I.A.No. 357 of 2024 in O.S.No.92 of 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, pending disposal of the C.R.P. before this Honble Court, and pass 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.2178 of 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G RAMA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondent: 1. RAYAPROLU SRIKANTH The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.2178 of 2024 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff, aggrieved by the order dated 18.07.2024 passed in I.A.No.357 of 2024 in O.S.No.92 of 2014 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram. 2. The petitioner before this Court is the plaintiff in O.S.No.92 of 2014, who has filed a said suit seeking recovery of possession of western portion of the plaint schedule property and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff after evicting the respondent/defendant. 3. During the course of trial, PW1 was examined in chief and cross- examined by the learned counsel for the defendant on 19.07.2023, 30.10.2023. 15.11.2023 and 13.12.2023 at length. Thereafter, PW2 was also examined in chief and cross and during the course of cross-examination of PW3, the respondent/defendant herein has filed I.A.No.357 of 2024 under Order 18 Rule 7 of the CPC, requesting the Court below to recall PW1 for further cross-examination on the ground that the counsel who cross-examined PW1 has given up his vakalat and the counsel on record, after going through the entire case record, pleadings and depositions, has advised the respondent/defendant to file the present I.A.No.357 of 2024 to recall PW1 for further cross-examination. The said application has been ordered by the Court below on 18.07.2027, which reads as under: 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.2178 of 2024 “Perused the entire record. On perusal of the record, it is clear that PW1 was in detailed cross examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant, but as per the record it is also evident that recently the petitioner-defendant had changed his advocate and as such as per the advocate who was engaged by the petitioner/defendant recently, he intends to cross examine the PW1, but no specific points were mentioned with regard to on what aspect, the petitioner-defendant intends to cross examine the PW1. But, in order to give fair opportunity to the petitioner-defendant in the interest of justice, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition on payment of costs of Rs.200/- to PW1.” 4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the Court below has already observed that PW1 was cross-examined in detail by the earlier counsel for the defendant on 19.07.2023, 30.10.2023. 15.11.2023 and 13.12.2023 and it is also observed that the respondent/defendant has failed to specify the points on which aspect he intended to cross-examine PW1 once again. After closure of the evidence of PW1, PW2, however, at the stage of cross-examination of PW3, the present application is filed only on the sole ground there is a change of counsel on record for the respondent/defendant. 5. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff brought to the notice of this Court the Judgment in Dr.Kasimhanti Venkata Srinivasa Srikrishna Geethanand v. Kandukuri Butchi Mallikeswara Rao1, wherein this Court, under similar circumstances, held as follows: 12018(3) ALD 86 5 VS,J C.R.P.No.2178 of 2024 “A perusal of the affidavits filed by the petitioner shows that nothing is indicated therein except stating that on the advice of the new Counsel, it was realized that some important questions were not put to PW1 during his cross-examination and that they are very important to substantiate his case. In my opinion, such a reason is wholly unacceptable, for, a witness cannot be summoned, as a matter of course, for further cross-examination. The party has to necessarily satisfy the Court that the aspects on which he proposes to cross-examine are material for proper and effectual adjudication of the case and that if an opportunity is not given to him for further cross-examination, it would result in failure of justice. Otherwise, the parties may file applications one after the other resulting in endless procrastination of the suits.” 6. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent/defendant has relied upon a Judgment in Karnapu Satyanarayana vs. Chappa Venkata Rao2 , wherein it was held as follows: “Order XVIII Rule 17 of the C.P.C. gives power to the Court to recall at any stage of a suit any witness who has been re- examined and put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.” 7. Coming to the present case on hand, it is not in dispute that the respondent/defendant intended to recall PW1 only on the sole ground that there is a change of counsel on record and he intends to cross-examine PW1 on specific points. However, when PW1 was cross-examined at length on four occasions, i.e., 19.07.2023, 30.10.2023. 15.11.2023 and 13.12.2023, the question of seeking for recall of petitioner/plaintiff without even specifying the 2(2010) 6 ALT 776 6 VS,J C.R.P.No.2178 of 2024 points on which the counsel wants to cross-examine PW1 is unacceptable as held in Dr.Kasimhanti Venkata Srinivasa Srikrishna Geethanand’s case (referred supra). 8. The Court below also have rightly pointed out that PW1 was cross- examined in detail and also that no specific points were mentioned with regard to on what aspect the petitioner/defendant intends to cross-examine PW1. In such circumstances, the Court below ought not to have allowed the said application filed by the defendant on lenient grounds. 9. In view of the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment which shows that mere change of counsel is not a valid ground to recall the witness without showing the need and importance of further cross-examination, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order, dated 18.07.2024 passed in I.A. No. 357 of 2024 in O.S. No. 92 of 2014 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram, is hereby set aside. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :29.08.2025. KGR