APHC010509912025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the Twenty Third Day of September Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2511 of 2025 Between: S.Mehraj Ahmed ...Petitioner and Dafedar Abdul Rahim and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Varun Byreddy Counsel for the respondents: 1. Nil The Court made the following Order: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 08.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.219 of 2025 in O.S.No.40 of 2016, on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, filed by the defendant No.1 under Order XVII, Rule 17, C.P.C. recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. 2. The respondents Nos.1 to 16 herein filed the suit seeking permanent injunction. After filing the evidence of P.W.1, the defendant No.1 filed a petition seeking rejection of the plaint and sought adjournment for the cross-examination of P.W.1. Since the petitioner had taken as many as 14 adjournments for the purpose 2 C.R.P.No.2511 of 2025 of cross-examination of P.W.1, on 15.07.2024, the trial Court closed the cross-examination of P.W.1 by the defendant No. 1. Thereafter, P.W.1 was cross-examined by the other defendants on 23.09.2024, 30.09.2024, and 21.10.2024; yet, the defendant No.1 did not take steps to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination and merely remained observing the proceedings. 3. Subsequently, the petition in I.A.No.219 of 2025 was filed to recall P.W.1, stating that P.W.1 was not cross-examined as the petition for rejection of the plaint was pending, and the plaintiffs had also filed an application to implead defendants Nos. 17 and 18. The petition was not opposed by P.W.1 or any other plaintiffs, but, it was opposed by the co-defendants Nos. 2 to 6, who are the respondents Nos.15 to 19, by filing a counter of respondents Nos.15 to 18, which was adopted by the respondent No.19, stating that the petitioner failed to cross-examine P.W.1 even after 15 adjournments. 4. Agreeing with the contention of the co-defendants, the trial Court dismissed the petition, holding that the reasons stated by the petitioner are vague and indicate the conduct of the petitioner and that the petitioner played delay tactics, sleeping over his rights for more than two years. Aggrieved by this order, the present revision petition was filed. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there are no lapses on the part of the petitioner in not cross-examining P.W.1, since the petition for rejection of the plaint and the application to implead other defendants were also pending. He 3 C.R.P.No.2511 of 2025 further submitted that these facts are not disputed and constitute valid reasons for not cross-examining the witness. 6. As can be seen from the impugned order, the reason for dismissal is only based on the latches in not cross-examining the witness for several adjournments. The trial Court observed that the pendency of the petition seeking rejection of the plaint or the petition for impleadment of other defendants are not good reasons for not cross-examining the witness. According to the trial Court, the petitioner slept over his rights without cross-examining the witness at the right occasion, and thereby the present petition is only a delay tact without any merit. 7. As the petitioner / defendant No. 1 is challenging the maintainability of the plaint by filing the petition for its rejection, this could be a sufficient reason for seeking adjournments for cross- examination of P.W.1 as further proceedings go waste if the petition is allowed. However, even after the evidence was closed, additional time was taken to file the present application. The impugned order does not indicate the dates of the petition for rejection of the plaint or the petition for impleadment of other defendants. The suit has been pending since 2016, and every effort must be made to dispose of the case on merits rather than on mere technical grounds. 8. It is not the case of the contesting respondents that there was any collusion between P.W.1 and the petitioner in seeking adjournments. In fact, P.W.1 and the co-plaintiffs did not raise any objection to the relief claimed in the petition. Therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the co-defendants insofar as the 4 C.R.P.No.2511 of 2025 relief in this petition is concerned, in the absence of any ground taken with regard to the same. If at all the trial Court found that there were lapses on the part of the petitioner, some terms could have been imposed while allowing the petition, so as to safeguard the interests of the parties and adjudicate the matter on merits. 9. In the result, the petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned I.A.No.219 of 2025 in O.S.No.40 of 2016, on the file of the Court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool, and the said petition is allowed on the condition that the petitioner shall pay Rs.2,000/- to P.W.1 and Rs.3,000/- to the respondents Nos.15 to 19, within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the revision petition shall stand dismissed without any further order. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Date: 23.09.2025 CC by 25.09.2025 B/o RSD 5 C.R.P.No.2511 of 2025 56 The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2511 of 2025 Date: 23.09.2025 CC by 25.09.2025 B/o RSD