THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO I.A. No.4 of 2025 IN CRP No.1542 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner herein filed I.A. No.94 of 2024 in F.C.O.P. No.74 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court-cum-III Additional District Court, Vizianagaram, to recall the evidence of the respondent-husband. The said application was dismissed. Assailing the same the petitioner herein filed C.R.P. No.1542 of 2025. This Court has dismissed the C.R.P., inter alia relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhaka Gogate1. The Apex Court held that the provision of Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall of witness after examination is to be used sparingly exercised in appropriate cases while trying a suit to clarify any doubts which may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties not merely on the ground that recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties and referencing the provisions of Section 15 and 16 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. 2. The present I.A. No.4 of 2025 has been filed to review the order dated 31.10.2025 on the ground that the petitioner is unable to cross- examine the respondent-husband that the petitioner could not put the 1 (200() 4 SCC 410 2 questions, due to insurmountable reasons, regarding to omissions and contradictions recorded in the criminal case filed by the petitioner as well to cross-examine on the testimonies recorded in F.C.O.P., filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the cross-examination is a basic fundamental right that cannot be defied by the Courts and denying this right amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Hence, prayed to allow review petition and to recall the order dated 31.10.2025. 3. Admittedly, the depositions and the testimonies and the judgments that are delivered in the criminal case and in F.C.O.P. are with the petitioner as the said cases were disposed much prior to commencement of the trial in the present F.C.O.P. No. 74 of 2019. The petitioner ought to have been confronted to the witness while cross- examining the witness when it was not brought on record. Now, the petitioner cannot file an application for recall, for the purpose of cross- examine on the omissions and contradictions that recorded in the criminal case and in the O.P., and to re-appreciate the evidence. The documents are within the knowledge of the petitioner and the petitioner has not cross-examined by confronting the said documents and thus, recalling the witness to allow this, is not permissible which was not done by the petitioner, at the relevant point of time. 3 4. The argument of the petitioner’s counsel that the Court has not allowed the petitioner to cross-examine, cannot be accepted and the petitioner has cross-examined on four occasions and the Court is empowered to regulate the cross-examination under Section 165 of the Evidence Act, to monitor the proceedings. The Court has vast powers to elicit all relevant evidence and has an active role in the evidence collecting process. Under the pursuit of cross-examination is a fundamental right, the petitioner cannot be allowed or permitted to cross-examine on irrelevant matters and to proceed with cross- examination to harass the witness. 5. The petitioner herein filed W.P. No.17988 of 2025 to declare the action of the respondents particularly 3rd respondent-The III Additional Sessions Judge –cum-Family Court Judge, Vizianagaram, to allow the application for corrections of errors in recorded statements of cross examination in F.C.O.P. No.74 of 2019 and also to reopen evidence of the petitioner and respondent No.4 and to pass such other order or orders. The relief sought in the Writ Petition is identical to that in the present C.R.P., which is a request to reopen evidence in the lower courts. The petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue two simultaneous proceedings for the same relief. 6. A review may be allowed on specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the 4 exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge or could not be produced at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason, "any other sufficient reason" must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule." None of these grounds has been raised in this review application. 7. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, the review I.A. No.4 of 2025 in C.R.P. No.1542 of 2025, is dismissed with costs of Rs.500/-, that is payable to District Legal Services Authority within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this review order and confirmed the order dated 31.10.2025 delivered in C.R.P. on merits. However, the costs of Rs.10,000/- that imposed while dismissing the C.R.P. is hereby recalled. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 23.01.2026 Harin 5 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHARA RAO I.A. No.4 of 2025 in C.R.P.No. 1542 OF 2025 Date: 23-01-2026 Harin