THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2009 of 2025 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 03.07.2025 in I.A.No.422 of 2025 in F.C.O.P.No.419 of 2018 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-XII Additional District Judge, Guntur and consequently prayed to set-aside the said order. 2. Heard Mr.Varun Byreddy, learned counsel appearing behalf of Mr.Sai Saran Chodisetty and Mr.Peta Gnana Teja, learned counsel for the respondent. 3. The revision petitioner is the petitioner in F.C.O.P.No.419 of 2018. The petitioner and respondent are the husband and wife respectively. The petitioner filed the present O.P. for grant of divorce. During the pendency of the O.P., he filed an Interlocutory application in I.A.No.422 of 2025 for reopening the evidence on his side to adduce further evidence. By its order, dated 03.07.2025, the said application is dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved thereby, the present Revision is filed. 4. The case of the petitioner is that the petition in F.C.O.P.No.419 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner to declare his 2 marriage with the respondent as null and void on the ground of fraud, and he had filed a petition before this Court for issuance of directions to refer the respondent to the Medical Board of Government General Hospital, Guntur, for undergoing investigations of 8Chest X ray P.A view; Pulmonary Function Test; Bronchoscopy; Sputum for AFB; culture and Sensitivity and Gram Staining; HRTC as to her Lungs ailments and also Ultra Sound Abdomen and Pelvis; Follicle Stimulating Harmone (FSH); and other necessary and relevant tests as to her fertility and cardio tests for cardiac ailments and for filing of reports and investigations with summary of consequences of above investigation reports by the said Government General Hospital, Guntur, before this Court. The said report issued by the Medical Board has to be marked through Dr.S.Raghu, M.D., Senior Pulmonologist, Professor and Head of the Department, who is one of the Doctors, examined the respondent in the Medical Board. To issue summons to the said Dr.S.Raghu, in order to mark the said report issued by the Medical Board, the matter needs to be re-opened and accordingly, he filed the petition for reopening the evidence of the petitioner9s side. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the learned trial court erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. In fact, the discretion vested with the Court and the same 3 must be exercised in order to ensure justice to legitimate rights of the party to the litigation. He further contends that the learned trial court ought to have appreciate the report of the Medical Board, Government General Hospital, Guntur, which is very much relevant and the same is material to decide the matter in dispute, on merits. He further contends that the trial court ought to have appreciate that the respondent herein taking advantage of the material fact of the said report of Medical Board, not being marked as evidence, has filed series of interlocutory applications in main O.P and has brought the medical opinion of a private medical practitioner on record and got the same marked as material evidence. Learned trial court failed to exercise its power to permit reopening of evidence as per the provisions of Section 151 of C.P.C., and that there is justifying need for reopening of evidence in the O.P., as the circumstances warranting the marking of said medical report, which is relevant to decide the subject matter in proper perspective. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that on 04.03.2020, the respondent was examined by Dr.Bhushana Rao, Pulmonologist, who is one of the Doctors in the Medical Board. On 10.10.2023, the respondent deposed in her cross examination that the said doctors, who examined her in the Government Hospital, did not sign the final report. Therefore, the 4 respondent filed I.A.No.851 of 2024 stating that the Pulmonary Function Test was not there in the medical record sent by the Government General Hospital, to the trial court. Dr. S. Raghu is already examined as PW.2 in this case. The petitioner filed this divorce petition in the year 2015 and later, it was transferred to the Family Court in the year 2018. The petitioner is dragging on the matter on one pretext or the other. Learned counsel for the respondent further contends that two doctors gave opinions in two different ways. Dr. Bhushan Rao, who examined the respondent gave his opinion by having the values FEV1=1.16, whereas, Dr.S.Raghu did not examine the respondent at all. Therefore, he is not competent to give any opinion regarding the respondent. Further, learned counsel contends that Dr.Raghu is the already examined as PW.2 and as such there is no need to issue summons again to him for his cross examination in this case. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the present Revision. 7. Having heard the submissions of both the counsels and on careful perusal of the material on record, it appears that the matter is at the stage of arguments. Both sides evidence is concluded. At that stage, the petitioner wants to re-open the matter for the purpose of examination of Dr.S.Raghu. The trial court, upon hearing and considering the material on record, opined that the petitioner is 5 supposed to come up with such application before the evidence on respondent9s side is completed. When the matter is posted for arguments that too, after few adjournments itself, he came up with the application. In fact, the trial court also noted that previously the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.1048 of 2018 for further medical examination of the respondent and the said petition was dismissed by the trial court. Considering the fact that Dr. S. Raghu was already examined as PW.2 and the petitioner has already examined three (03) witnesses and the petitioner suppressed the examination of the said Dr.S.Raghu as a witness already and as such, the trial court found that no bona fide in the petition and accordingly, dismissed the petition. 8. Admittedly, Dr.S.Raghu, who was examined as PW.2, already deposed his evidence and as such, again summoning him for cross examination is not necessary. The evidence deposed by Dr.S.Raghu as PW.2, is sufficient for proper adjudication of the issue involved in the main case. 9. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no valid grounds to interfere with the reasoned order passed by the trial court in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner. 6 10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is closed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Date: 12.09.2025 PKR 7 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND 501 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2009 of 2025 Date: 12.09.2025 PKR