APHC010526932024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 2886 AND 2885 OF 2024 CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2886 OF 2024 Between: 1. SHAIK MASTHAN SAHEB, S/O ABDUL SUKUR, AGED 33 YEARS, EMPLOYEE. D.NO.4-29, BALAJI COLONY, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK ABDUL SHUKUR,, S/O SHAIK HANSEEF SAHEB, AGED 63 YEARS, D.NO.4-29, BALAJI COLONY, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT. 3. SMT.S.SHAMSHAD,, W/O SHAIK ABDUL SHUKUR, AGED 52 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.4-29, BALAJI COLONY, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. CORPORATION BANK, Chittoor Branch, now merged with Union Bank of India OTK Road Branch, rep. by its Senior Branch Manager. ...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 in I.A.No.342/2024 in O.S.No.463 of 2019, dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Principal Junior civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor district and allow the C.R.P. and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2024 2 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.2886 and 2885 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.463 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor Disrtrict, pending disposal of the C.R.P. and pass such CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2885/2024 Between: 1. SHAIK MASTHAN SAHEB, S/O ABDUL SUKUR, AGED 33 YEARS, EMPLOYEE, D.NO.4-29, BALAJI COLONY, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT. 2. SHAIK ABDUL SHUKUR,, S/O SHAIK HANSEEF SAHEB, AGED 63 YEARS, D.NO.4-29, BALAJI COLONY, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT. 3. SMT.S.SHAMSHAD,, W/O SHAIK ABDUL SHUKUR, AGED 52 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO.4-29, BALAJI COLONY, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR TOWN AND DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. CORPORATION BANK, Chittoor Branch, now merged with Union Bank of India, OTK Road Branch, rep. by its Senior Branch Manager ...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 may be pleased to set-aside the order in I.A.No.394/2024 in O.S.No.463 of 2019, dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Principal Junior civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor district and allow the C.R.P. and pass such 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 stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.463 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor, Chittoor Disrtrict, pending disposal of the C.R.P. and pass such 3 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.2886 and 2885 of 2024 Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MADHU SUDHAN P Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V DYUMANI The Court made the following: 4 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.2886 and 2885 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions No.2886 and 2885 of 2024 are filed by the petitioner/defendant, aggrieved by the orders, dated 10.10.2024 in I.A.Nos.342 of 2024 and 394 of 2024 respectively in O.S.No.463 of 2019 on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 2. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions are interconnected, they were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 3. The case of the petitioners is that they are the defendants in O.S.No.463 of 2019 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.1,39,713/- as on 12.03.2017, together with further interest from the date of the suit till the date of realization. 4. It is further contended that the petitioners/defendants filed written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and submitted that the 1st defendant availed educational loan from the plaintiff bank for three successive academic years from 2010-2013 of an amount of Rs.45,000/- per year. It was also the case of the defendants that the 3rd defendant has nothing to do with the loan and she never executed any letter of guarantee in favour of the plaintiff bank at any point of time and the letter of guarantee, dated 12.08.2010 alleged to have been executed by the 3rd defendant is a forged and fabricated one. 5 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.2886 and 2885 of 2024 5. During the course of trial, after completion of chief and cross- examination of PW1, the petitioners/defendants have filed I.A.No.342 of 2024 under Section 151 CPC to reopen the case and I.A.No.394 of 2024 under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC to recall PW1 for further cross-examination on the ground that PW1 was cross-examined by their previous counsel and when matter is posted for their evidence, they engaged the present counsel and on perusal of the cross-examination of PW1, they found that by oversight some of the important points/aspects were not put to PW1 while cross-examining with regard to monthly installments and other aspects which are very crucial and necessary to decide their case on merits. The said petitions are dismissed by the Court below. Challenging the said orders, the present Civil Revisions Petitions are filed by the petitioners/defendants. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant submitted that the Court below committed an error in dismissing the petitions instead of allowing the same. The respondent/plaintiff did not file any counter opposing the applications. The Court below failed to take into consideration the fact that the defendant’s counsel did not cross-examine on the points narrated in the written statement. The Court below failed to appreciate that the petitioner/defendant filed these petitions to reopen the case and recall PW1 for further cross-examination so as to examine only with regard to the case of 6 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.2886 and 2885 of 2024 the plaintiff in the pleadings. Nothing will prejudice or cause loss to the respondent/plaintiff if these petitions are allowed. The Court below dismissed the petitions on erroneous grounds that the gaps will be filled up. The Courts have ample power at the time of cross-examination to curtail the counsels when asked more than the pleadings. Therefore, prays to allow these civil revision petitions. 8. Per contra, the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supported the order impugned and relied on a Judgment of this Court in Dr.Kasimhanti Venkata Srinivasa Srikrishna Geethanand v. Kandukuri Butchi Mallikeswara Rao1. 7. A perusal of the orders passed by the Court below reflects that, while dismissing the petitions filed by the petitioner/defendant, it relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in Velugu Eswaramma v. Velugu Shobharani (Civil Revision Petition Nos.7435 and 7439 of 2017, dated 28.03.2019), wherein this Court, under similar circumstances, held that failure to cross-examine the witness on certain aspects, by itself, is not a ground enough to recall the witness for the purpose of further cross-examination, and if the same is allowed, the gaps will be filled up. 9. In Dr.Kasimhanti Venkata Srinivasa Srikrishna Geethanand’s case (supra), this Court, under similar circumstances, held as follows: 12018(3) ALD 86 7 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.2886 and 2885 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.” 10. In the present case also, except stating that some important questions were not put to PW1 during cross-examination, no substantial reasons are furnished, which is unacceptable, and this Court do not find any reasonable grounds to interfere in the orders dated 10.10.2024 in I.A.Nos.342 of 2024 and 394 of 2024 in O.S.No.463 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. 11. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :29.08.2025. KGR