1 VS,J CRP_2561_2024 APHC010467972024 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: 2561/2024 Between: 1. MALLIDI VEERA VENKATA RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, S/O- SUBBA REDDY, AGED-66, R/O-D.NO.11-271/A, PANDALAPAKA VILLAGE, BICCAVOLE MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GORLA LALITHA DEVI, W/o- Ramanaiah, aged 68, R/o- D.No. 81-33- 21, Venkateswara Nagar, Opp. Suiya Function hall, J.N Road, Rajahmundiy, East Godavari 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 toPleased to set aside the order dated 8-8-2024 in LA No. 247 of 2024 in O.S No. 108 of 2019 passed by the Honble I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmahendravaram and consequently allow I.A No. 247 of 2024 in O.S No. 108 of 2019 and pass 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 Pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S No. 108 of 2019 2 VS,J CRP_2561_2024 before the Honble 1st Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P VIVEK Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PONNADA SREE VYAS The Court made the following: 3 VS,J CRP_2561_2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 08.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.247 of 2024 in O.S.No.108 of 2019 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajamahendravaram. 2. Brief facts of the case are that initially, the respondent/plaintiff has filed O.S.No.108 of 2019 before the Court below for recovery of Rs.25,28,668/- from the petitioner/defendant on the strength of four promissory notes executed by the petitioner/defendant in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. In the said suit, the petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.247 of 2024 under Order 18, Rule 17 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, with a plea to recall P.Ws.2 and 3 for the purpose of further cross examination. While dismissing the said application filed by the petitioner/defendant, the Court below had observed that the petitioner/defendant has not mentioned a single sentence on what points the further cross examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 is required. It further observed that P.Ws.2 and 3 were cross examined substantially and in such a case, it is for the petitioner/defendant to put forward the points on which further cross examination is required. When there are no cogent reasons in the affidavit filed by the petitioner/defendant, he is not entitled to seek recall of P.Ws.2 and 3. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 4 VS,J CRP_2561_2024 3. Heard Sri. P. Vivek, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Ponnada Sree Vyas, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasoning offered by the Court below is erroneous as the very purpose of cross-examining the witnesses for the second time would be defeated, if the points on which they would be cross examined are revealed. Had the questions to be posed to P.Ws.2 and 3 been stated in the affidavit filed before the Court below, it gives pre-indication to the opposite party to alert and to avoid answers conveniently by preparation. As prejudice is being caused to the petitioner by virtue of the impugned order, the same is liable to be set-aside and as such, requested this Court to allow the present petition. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner has to necessarily satisfy the Court that the aspects on which he proposes to cross-examine P.Ws.2 and 3 are material for proper and effectual adjudication of the case, but, in the case on hand, the petitioner has not disclosed on what aspects he proposes to further cross-examine P.Ws.2 and 3. As such, the Court below has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner and hence, requested to dismiss the present petition. 6. On a perusal of the material available on record, it can be seen that the petitioner/defendant has filed I.A.No.247 of 2024 under Order 18, Rule 17 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, with a plea to recall P.Ws.2 and 3 for 5 VS,J CRP_2561_2024 the purpose of further cross examination and the same was dismissed by the Court below mainly on the ground that the petitioner/defendant has not indicated the aspects on which he proposes to further cross-examine P.Ws.2 and 3 in the suit. In Dr. Kasimhanti Venkata Srinivasa Srikrishna Geethanand V. Kandukuri Butchi Mallikeswara Rao1, the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, under similar circumstances, held as under: “8. While it is true that disclosure of the questions that are proposed to be put to the witness in his further cross- examination would make the very purpose of further cross-examination redundant, it is obligatory on the part of the party seeking summoning of any witness for further cross-examination to satisfy the Court with sufficient reasons therefor. For this purpose, the party has to necessarily indicate the aspects, on which he would like to cross-examine the witness further. While disclosing specific questions is one thing, indication of the aspects on which the party wants further cross- examination is quite another thing. In the latter case, no prejudice will be caused to the party seeking summoning of the witness for further cross-examination.” 7. From the above, it is clear that a party seeking to recall a witness for further cross-examination must give valid reasons and specify the topics to be covered, without revealing exact questions, as this doesn't harm their case. The said view was also fortified by the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1 2018 (3) ALD 86 6 VS,J CRP_2561_2024 Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadehandra Prabhakar Gogate2, K.K. Velusamy v. N.Palanisamy3. 8. In Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadehandra Prabhakar Gogate (2nd supra), has held that the power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that the recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. If the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the trial court to permit recall of such a witness for re- examination. 9. In the case on hand, a perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner/defendant in support of his case would go to show nothing except stating that the petitioner and his counsel noticed some of the crucial points which were not put forward to P.Ws.2 and 3 due to inadvertence. The said reason is not convincing, for a witness cannot be summoned, as a matter of course, for further cross examination. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has not satisfied the Court that the aspects on which he proposes to cross examine P.Ws.2 and 3 are material for proper and effectual adjudication of the case and that if an opportunity is not given to him, it would result in failure of justice. If such an application is filed by any person with a 2 (2009) 4 SCC 410 3 (2011) 11 SCC 275 7 VS,J CRP_2561_2024 plea to recall witnesses for further examination without specifying the proper reasons, the parties would file applications one after the other which would be used to cause further delay in the suit proceedings. 10. Further, there is nothing to indicate on record that the evidence on re- examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit. As such, in view of the above discussion and in view of the law laid down in the aforementioned judgments, this Court feels no hesitation in dismissing the present petition. 11. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date: 29.08.2025 GSS