APHC010026502021 Tuesday, the Twenty Ninth day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi C.R.P Nos.194 & 195 of 2025 Between: K. Ramesh Kumar, Karmanghat, Hyderabad and K. Pullaiah S/o Pullaiah and others Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala Counsel for the respondents: None The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the Twenty Ninth day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi C.R.P Nos.194 & 195 of 2025 K. Ramesh Kumar, Karmanghat, Hyderabad ...Petitioner K. Pullaiah S/o Pullaiah and others ….Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mahadeva Kanthrigala respondents: The Court made the following: [3333] Tuesday, the Twenty Ninth day of April, Two Thousand and Twenty Five ...Petitioner Respondents 2 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.194 & 195 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the unsuccessful defendant No.6 are filed against the order, dated 09.12.2024, dismissing I.A.Nos.259 of 2024 and 258 of 2024 in O.S.No.4 of 2022 (old O.S.No.242 of 2011) on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone. 2. C.R.P.No.194 of 2025 is filed against the order, dated 09.12.2024 passed in I.A.No.259 of 2024 and C.R.P.No.195 of 2025 is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.258 of 2024. 3. I.A.No.258 of 2024 was filed to set aside the order, dated 22.10.2024, eschewing the additional chief affidavit of DW7 and whereas I.A.No.259 of 2024 was filed under Section 151 CPC to reopen the evidence on the side of the defendants to enable them to produce DW7 for further cross-examination. 4. Since both these petitions arise out of the same suit, they were heard together and are disposed of through this common order. 5. Heard Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.6. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondents/plaintiffs. 6. The case of the revision petitioner/defendant No.6, as stated in the affidavits filed in support of these petitions, in brief, is as follows: a. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking partition and for allotment of 2/6th share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants filed written statement opposing the suit. The suit was coming up for further cross-examination of DW7, after his recall, at the 3 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.194 & 195 of 2025 instance of the revision petitioner. However, his cross-examination could not be completed for various reasons and the suit stood posted to 22.10.2024. Further, as the counsel could not be present on 22.10.2024, the trial Court eschewed the chief affidavit of DW7 and posted the suit to 08.11.2024 for arguments. The absence of DW7 before the trial Court on 22.10.2024 for further cross-examination was neither willful nor due to negligence. Further, the evidence of DW7 on the earlier spell was exhaustive and he was ordered to be recalled only for the limited purpose of confronting certain documents, which were already filed and marked on behalf of the defendants in the suit. The orders of the trial Court eschewing the evidence of DW7 would affect the entire evidence and would cause severe hardship. Therefore, these petitions were filed to set aside the order, dated 22.10.2024, eschewing the additional chief affidavit of DW7 and to reopen the evidence on the side of the defendants to enable them to produce DW7 for his further cross-examination. b. The respondents/plaintiffs filed counter with the following averments: The petitions are unjust and are not maintainable either on facts or on law and as such, they are liable to be dismissed in limine. The petitions are filed with false allegations in order to drag on the matter without complying the conditions imposed by the Court. The petitioner intentionally did not appear and represent before the Court but on the same day, he appeared before the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Dhone, in another matter. The provision of law quoted is inapplicable. The petitions are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 4 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.194 & 195 of 2025 7. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed both the petitions by separate orders observing that even after giving several opportunities, DW7 could not avail the opportunity and further as per the counter averments, DW7 attended in C.C.No.16 of 2014 before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dhone, on the very same day, and therefore, providing another opportunity to reopen the evidence which was closed by the Court for further cross-examination would not serve any purpose. 8. Hence, these two revisions are filed by the petitioner/defendant No.6. 9. The revision petitioner urged that the counsel for the plaintiffs went on seeking time for filing counter in I.A.No.212 of 2024 till 17.09.2024, however, the trial Court erred in eschewing the additional chief affidavit of DW7 on 29.07.2024 on the ground that DW7 could not avail the opportunity from 29.07.2024 till 17.09.2024. The trial Court ought to have exercised its discretion judiciously and ought to have set aside the order, dated 22.10.2024, eschewing the additional chief affidavit of DW7. There was no deliberate or intentional fault or laches either on the part of DW7 or the revision petitioner and therefore, the orders, dated 09.12.2024, are liable to be set aside. 10. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contents in the petitions as well as the grounds in the revisions. 11. The respondents 1 & 2 failed to make appearance in spite of service of notice on them and moreover, they did not contest before the trial Court. 5 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.194 & 195 of 2025 12. As can be seen from a perusal of the record, all the delay in not producing DW7 for further cross-examination is not attributable to the petitioner alone. Of course, time was given prior to eschewing evidence of DW7. It is pertinent to mention that it is only at the instance of respondents 1 & 2, DW7 was recalled. When the delay or lapse cannot be attributable solely for the negligence of the petitioner, eschewing the entire evidence which was recorded even prior to the recall of DW7 is prejudicial to the petitioner. As such, the trial Court ought to have taken a balanced view of allowing the petitions, which, in fact, were not even opposed by imposing costs, if felt necessary. 13. The law is well settled that procedure is handmaid of justice and every endeavour must be made by the Court to decide the case on merits, particularly when the refusal of relief is causing hardship to the petitioner and resulting in injustice, too much insistence on procedural formalities or certain lapses beyond the control of the party, the relief ought not to have been rejected. As such, the orders impugned in these revisions are liable to be interfered with. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed setting aside the orders, dated 09.12.2024, of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, passed in I.A.Nos.259 of 2024 and 258 of 2024 in O.S.No.4 of 2022 (old O.S.No.242 of 2011). As a sequel, I.A.Nos.259 of 2024 and 258 of 2024 are allowed on condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Kurnool, within one (1) week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall produce DW7 on the date fixed by the trial Court without fail, unless the trial Court itself extends the time. 6 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.194 & 195 of 2025 Failing to fulfill any of the above conditions would result in dismissal of these petitions without any further orders. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S BHANUMATHI, J 29th April, 2025 RAR