1 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1833 and 1836 of 2023 APHC010367262023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] FRIDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1833/2023 Between: 1. G. ANANDARAO, , S/O. DEVASAHAYAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, CHRISTIAN, OCC.RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEE R/O. D.NO. 2/93, BANK COLONY, MUDDANUR ROAD, JAMMALAMADUGU TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. G. NIRMALA,, W/O. G. ANANDA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, CHRISTIAN, OCC. HOUSE WIFE R/O. D.NO. 2/93, BANK COLONY, MUDDANUR ROAD, JAMMALAMADUGU TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. H SANTHA BAI, W/o. H. Rambabu, Aged about 55 years, Hindu, Occ. House wife, R/o. 14-94, S.K.P. Street, Jammalamadugu town And Mandal, YSR Kadapa 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 allow the CRP by setting aside the Common order dated 04-07-2023 Passed in I.A. NO. 644/2023 IN O.S. NO. 299 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District and pass 2 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1833 and 1836 of 2023 IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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. 299 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District pending disposal of the above CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1836/2023 Between: 1. G ANANDA RAO, S/O. DEVASAHAYAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, CHRISTIAN, OCC. RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEE R/O. D.NO. 2/93, BANK COLONY, MUDDANUR ROAD, JAMMALAMADUGU TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT. 2. G. NIRMALA,, W/O. G. ANANDA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, CHRISTIAN, OCC. HOUSE WIFE R/O. D.NO. 2/93, BANK COLONY, MUDDANUR ROAD, JAMMALAMADUGU TOWN AND MANDAL, YSR KADAPA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. H SANTHA BAI, W/o. H. Rambabu, Aged about 55 years, Hindu, Occ. House wife, R/o. 14-94, S.K.P. Street, Jammalamadugu town And Mandal, YSR Kadapa 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 tobegs to present this CRP aggrieved by the Common order dated 3 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1833 and 1836 of 2023 04-07-2023 Passed in I.A. NO. 645/2023 IN O.S. NO. 299 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu IA NO: 1 OF 2023 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. 299 of 2021 on the file of Hon'ble Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, YSR Kadapa District pending disposal of the above CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. V NITESH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. D KODANDARAMI REDDY The Court made the following: 4 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1833 and 1836 of 2023 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners/defendants challenging the common order dated 04.07.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.644 and 645 of 2023 in O.S.No.299 of 2021 on the file of Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, whereby, the trial Court dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner for reopening the evidence of respondent/plaintiff and to recall respondent/plaintiff for further cross examination. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under: (a) The respondent/plaintiff filed O.S.No.299 of 2021 on the file of Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu against the petitioners herein for recovery of an amount of Rs.14,42,366/- relying upon two promissory notes said to have been executed by the petitioners. Pending the said suit, when the matter was posted for cross examination of D.W.1, the petitioners filed I.A.No.644 of 2023 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to re-call P.W.1 (respondent/plaintiff) for further cross examination and I.A.No.645 of 2023 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to reopen the evidence of respondent/plaintiff. It is the contention of the petitioners that during cross examination of P.W.1 (respondent/plaintiff), learned counsel appearing for the petitioners before the Court below did not cross examine the respondent/plaintiff with regard to the material alterations that are visible on 5 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1833 and 1836 of 2023 Ex.A2 and few other questions based on Exs.A1 and A2. The trial Court, by way of a common order dated 04.07.2023 dismissed the applications filed by the petitioners by observing that there are no material alterations in Ex.A2 as alleged. Aggrieved by the common order passed by the Court below in I.A.Nos.644 and 645 of 2023, the petitioners filed C.R.P.Nos.1833 and 1836 of 2023 respectively. 3. When C.R.P.No.1833 of 2023 came up for hearing on 01.08.2023, this Court granted interim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.299 of 2021 on the file of Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, initially for a period of four (4) weeks, which was extended thereafter from time to time. 4. Heard Mr. V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. D. Kodanda Rami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Admittedly, the respondent has filed O.S.No.299 of 2021 before the Court below against the petitioners for recovery of an amount ofRs.14,42,366/- basing on two promissory notes (Exs.A1 and A2) alleged to have been executed by the petitioners herein. The said execution of promissory notes is denied by the petitioners. Inadvertently, during the course of cross examination of the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioners before the Court below did not cross examine him with regard to the alterations visible on Ex.A2 and few other important questions were not put forward. As such, the petitioners filed I.A.Nos.644 and 645 of 2023 under 6 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1833 and 1836 of 2023 Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 and under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure respectively, for reopening the evidence of respondent/plaintiff and to recall respondent/plaintiff for further cross examination. The applications filed by the petitioners were dismissed by the Court below by observing as under: “…The contention of the petitioners is that there is material alteration on Ex.A2. So to prove their case, they have to cross examined P.W.1. But a perusal of Ex.A2 shows that there are no material alterations in it. Hence, this court feels that only to drag on the matter these petitions are filed at the time of cross-examination of D.W.1. Hence, the petitions are dismissed.” 6. For better appreciation of the case, Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extracted hereunder: “17. Court may recall and examine witness:— The Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force put such question to him as the court thinks fit.” 7. In Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (deceased) by L.Rs) v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate1, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. It was further held that the main purpose of the said rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify any doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by 1 (2009) 4 SCC 410 7 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1833 and 1836 of 2023 the parties. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate case and not as a general rule. The Hon'ble Apex Court further held that 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 in chief with permission to the defendants to cross-examine the witness thereafter. It was held that ultimately it is within the court's discretion, if it deems fit to allow such an application. 8. In the case on hand, it is the contention of the petitioners that there are visible alterations on Ex.A.2 i.e. the promissory note dated 25.08.2020. On a perusal of the same, this Court is of the opinion that at line No.8, the digits Rs.2,50,000/- were slightly altered. The question as to whether it was altered, is not the subject matter in the case on hand. On a perusal of the common order passed by the Court below on 04.07.2023, trial Court stated that there are no material alterations in Ex.A2, but it has not justified as to how it came to a conclusion that the petitioners filed the said applications only to drag on the suit proceedings at the stage of cross examination of D.W.1. Dealing with a case arising out of an order passed by the High Court and referring to Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy v. N. 8 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1833 and 1836 of 2023 Palanisamy2, inter alia, opined that even at the stage of arguments, the said provision enables the Court to recall and examine any witness to do justice. 9. Admittedly, the trial Court has passed the impugned common order without assigning any proper reasons as to why it came to the conclusion that there are no material alterations in Ex.A2 though it was specifically contended by the petitioners. Further, the trial Court has wrongly come to a conclusion that the petitioners have filed the said applications only to drag on the suit proceedings at the stage of cross examination of D.W.1 though the Apex Court has time and again held that even at the stage of arguments, Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC enables the Court to recall and examine any witness to do justice. This Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has failed to observe that the evidence on re-examination of the respondent/plaintiff with regard to the alleged alteration on Ex.A2 would have a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit. As such, the common order passed by the trial Court on 04.07.2023 is liable to be set-aside. 10. Accordingly, these civil revision petitions are allowed and the common order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu in I.A.Nos.644 and 645 of 2023 in O.S.No.299 of 2021 is hereby set-aside. The trial Court shall reopen the evidence of respondent/plaintiff and shall recall the respondent/plaintiff for further cross 2 (2011) 11 SCC 275 9 VS,J C.R.P.Nos.1833 and 1836 of 2023 examination and after completion of cross examination, shall pass a reasoned order, uninfluenced by the order passed in these civil revision petitions. 11. In the result, these civil revision petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V. SUJATHA Date:31.10.2025 Gss