1 APHC010378642025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2377 of 2025 Between: 1. Sri Vijaya Trimukha Ganapathi Temple, Amalapuram, Rep.By Chairman, Sri Vijaya Trimukha Ganapathi Idol Development Society, Palivela Appa Rao, S/o.late Pullayya, Aged 70 years, Building Construction Works, Govvala Street, SKBR College Road, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Ganti Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Sarma @ Abbis, S/o.Rama Rao, Aged 62 years, Occ: Teacher, Palepu Sriramachandra Murthy Towers, SKBR College Road, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr.Panchagnula Rishyendra Sai Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.G.Ramgopal 2 The Court made the following Order: The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by Order dated 29.07.2025 in I.A.No.672 of 2025 in O.S.No.166 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. 2. The petitioner / plaintiff in the above suit filed the same against the respondent / defendant, for permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, followers, servants etc., from entering into the plaint schedule property or in any way interfering with the petitioner / plaintiff temple’s peaceful possession and enjoyment. 3. The petitioner filed the said I.A., seeking to recall P.W.2 for marking of the certain documents which according to it are required for proper adjudication of the suit. The respondent / defendant filed a counter and resisted the said application. The learned Trial Court, through the impugned order, dismissed the said application, against which the present Revision Petition is preferred. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard learned counsel for the respondent, who appeared through online. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions, inter alia, to the effect that the order under challenge is vitiated by failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested with the Trial Court. He submits that the documents sought to be marked by recalling P.W.2, have not been filed due to over sight and the said documents are very much essential to substantiate the case of the 3 petitioner / plaintiff. He also submits that though specific reasons are stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the learned Trial Court, without considering the matter in proper perspective, dismissed the I.A., in question. Referring to Order XVIII Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code he submits that the learned Trial Court has the power to recall the witness even at the stage of arguments. Relying on the judgment of a learned Judge in Kishore Singh & Another v. Manesh Singh & Others1, the learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petition. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions to sustain the order under revision contending that there is no illegality, much less irregular exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court. He seeks dismissal of the Revision Petition stating that there are no merits. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. 8. At the outset, from a reading of the order under revision, it is discernible that the documents which are sought to be marked were received pursuant to an order dated 10.03.2020 in I.A.No.1165 of 2019. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. in question, it is specifically stated that the suit record was sent to the petitioner’s counsel in High Court and in view of the same, the documents which were already received by virtue of orders passed in I.A.No.1165 of 2019, were not marked. No doubt, it appears that the petitioner 1 2016 LawSuit(Hyd) 867 4 has not taken immediate steps for getting the documents marked. Be that as it may. 9. Dealing with a case arising out of an order passed by the High Court and referring to Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K.Velusamy v. N.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. 10. Referring to the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a learned Judge in Kishore Singh’s case referred to supra, inter alia, opined that “examination of the witness is once necessary to prove the document and it is the bone of contention, though there are latches that can be compensated as held in K.K.Velusamy.” 11. In the light of the above referred decisions, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order under revision. Accordingly, the order dated 29.07.2025 in I.A.No.672 of 2025 passed by the learned Trial Court is set aside and the said I.A. is allowed, to recall P.W.2, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent/defendant. Further, P.W.2 shall attend the Trial Court on the next date of posting i.e., on 22.10.2025 for the purpose of marking of documents. It is made clear that if he fails to mark the documents on that day, the learned Trial Court may proceed further in the matter. 2 (2011) 11 SCC 275 5 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA Dt. 17.10.2025 Note: Issue CC in one day. B/o BLV 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA C.R.P. No: 2377 of 2025 Date: 17.10.2025 BLV