APHC010508602024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3014/2024 Between: Gadi Satyavathi @ Satyaveni ...PETITIONER AND Ittamsetti Sathibabu ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M SIVA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following Order: The petitioner herein has filed O.S.No.36 of 2018, before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsipatnam, for recovery of money from the respondent herein. The respondent denied any liability. Thereafter, the petitioner herein was examined as D.W.1. Subsequently, she was cross examined by the learned counsel for the respondent, in the Trial Court and the affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination of D.W.2 was filed. At that stage, the respondent moved an I.A.No.116 of 2024, for recalling D.W.1 for further cross examination. 2. The petitioner herein had resisted the said application on the ground that the application had been filed only for the purposes of dragging 2 the suit and on the ground that she had been comprehensively cross examined and any further cross examination would only be for the purposes of filling up lacuna which is not permissible. The Trial Court after hearing both sides had allowed the application, by an Order dated 18.10.2024. 3. Aggrieved by the said Order, dated 18.10.2024, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petition. 4. Sri M. Siva Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the order of the Trial Court requires to be set aside as the said order is in violation of the guidelines set out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in various Judgments and has relied upon the Judgments in cases of Vadiraj Naggapa Vernek (d) Through Lrs. Vs. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate1, Bagai Construction Vs. Gupta Building Material Store2, Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors3and Gayathri Vs. M. Girish 4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the basis of the said Judgments, would contend that recall of witnesses is not permissible where such a recall is made for extraneous reasons or to fill up the lacuna in the evidence recorded till then. 5. In the present case, the respondent had contended that one of the grounds on which the suit is being resisted is the fact that the petitioner and the respondent had acquaintance with each other and that the money 1 2009 (3) ALT (SC) 25 (S.B.) 2 (2013) 14 SCC 1 3 (2016) 11 SCC 296 4 (2016) 14 SCC 142 3 transaction question was part of the transactions between the petitioner and the respondent in relation to the sale of certain property. The respondent contended that the petitioner, in the course of cross examination, had denied any acquaintance with the respondent. The respondent further contended that he was now in possession of the document which would demonstrate that the petitioner had prior acquaintance with the respondent and the petitioner herein, as D.W.1, for confronting her with the said document. 6. The Trial Court after accepting this explanation had allowed the application for further cross examination. The Trial Court while allowing the application, had also restricted the scope of cross examination in the following manner:- “In these circumstances, the petitioners pleas seems reasonable and justified. Consequently, the petitioners plea is being considered, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall refrain from cross-examining respondent on the same aspects that were previously covered in the earlier cross-examination. Furthermore, the petitioner is permitted to cross examine respondent solely with respect to the new information.” 7. The principles set out in the Judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are binding on this Court. However, a closer look at the said Judgments would show that the facts which arose in those Judgments are different from the facts in the present case. 8. In the Judgment, in the case of Vadiraj Naggapa Vernek (d) Through Lrs. Vs. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate 5, the plaintiff had examined a witness. After cross examination of this witness, the plaintiff 5 2009 (3) ALT (SC) 25 (S.B.) 4 sought recall of witness for the purposes of adducing further evidence. This application was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, on the ground that the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC, permitting the recall of witnesses was for the purposes of clarifying doubts by the Court it may have with regard to evidence let by the parties and that the provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omission in the evidence of a witnesses who was already been examined. In the present case, the witness is not been recalled to fill up any lacunae in the evidence, but for further cross examination. 9. In the Judgment, in the case of Gayathri Vs. M. Girish6, the petitioner before the Court, who was the defendant in the suit, had initially delayed the cross examining of the witness and was given an opportunity for further cross examination on payment of cost. However, the witness was not cross examined even on that day as the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India refused to cross examine the witness. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had taken the view that a person who delays the Trial, and does so deliberately cannot be given any assistance by the Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that any such assistance would be an insult to justice and the concept of speedy disposal of civil litigation. In the present case, the application has been filed immediately after the completion of the cross examination and even before cross examination of D.W.2 commenced. In such circumstances, the facts 6 (2016) 14 SCC 142 5 arising in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India are completely different from the facts in the present case. 10. In the Judgment, in the case of Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram (Dead) Through Lrs & Ors7, the witness had been cross examined by the defendants and thereafter, the suit was consolidated with another suit filed by the respondents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, after surveying the principles relating to the recall of witnesses under Section 151 CPC, had extracted the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy 8. The said principles, extracted in paragraph No.15 of the Judgment, stipulated that Section 151 of CPC would be available where there is no other provision covering the situation and where inherent power needs to be exercised in furtherance of justice. The said Judgment would not be applicable to the present case as the issue before this Court is whether D.W.1 can be recalled for further cross examination. The provision applicable for such recall would be Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC. In view of the specific provisions under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC, the aforesaid principles set out, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, would not be applicable to the present case. 11. In the Judgment, in the case of Bagai Construction Vs. Gupta Building Material Store9, the witnesses had been cross examined and the petitioner before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, sought to recall the 7 (2016) 11 SCC 296 8 (2011) 11 SCC 275 9 (2013) 14 SCC 1 6 witness for re-examination. The same was rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, holding that such a move would amount to permitting the petitioner to fill up the lacuna which had been brought out by the cross examination. In the present case, the application is not for recall of the witness for re-examination, but for further cross examination. The question of holding that there is a lacuna, which is being filled up by re-examination would not arise in the present case. 12. This Court, does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Trial Court in as much as the application has been filed fairly within a reasonable time and it has been filed for the purposes of confronting the wittiness with a specific document. Further, the Trial Court itself had restricted the scope of further cross examination to the documents that were sought to be produced and used for confronting the witness. 13. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. BSM 7 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO C.R.P. No.3014 of 2024 (per Hon’ble Sri Justice R. Raghunandan Rao) Date: 04.04.2025 BSM