APHC010439212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the seventeenth The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: Between: M.Shoba Rani and others Uppari Omkar and others Counsel for the petitioner Sai Gangadhar Chamarty Counsel for the respondent T.Diwakar Reddy The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) seventeenth day of October two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 2285 of 2025 and others ...Petitioner and thers ...Respondents etitioners: Sai Gangadhar Chamarty espondents: The Court made the following: [3311] two thousand and twenty five Petitioners Respondents 2 C.R.P.No.2285 of 2025 O R D E R This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 15.07.2025 allowing the petition in I.A.No.275 of 2025 in O.S.No.484 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kurnool filed by the second defendant under Order XVIII, Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. 02. The revision petition is filed by the plaintiffs / respondents Nos.1 and 2 in I.A.No.275 of 2025. The second respondent herein is the respondent No.3 / defendant No.1. 03. The case of the petitioner before the trial Court is briefly stated as follows: The plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession of the plaint schedule property and for cancellation of a registered sale deed dated 27.07.2016 executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant (relief initially sought for declaration of sale deed as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs was amended). The first defendant is the father of the plaintiffs. The petitioner / defendant is a bona fide purchaser of the plaint schedule property from the first defendant. The suit was collusively filed by the plaintiffs at the instance of the first defendant. The petitioner alone is contesting the suit. The sale deed dated 27.07.2016 was preceded by three agreements of sale, wherein the plaintiffs attested the agreements. When P.W.1 / second defendant was examined in cross, the petitioner could not confront the witness on the agreements of sale as the documents were not duly stamped and inadmissible in evidence. Later, the petitioner got the agreement of sale dated 26.11.2015 impounded. Therefore, the petitioner was advised to file the petition to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross examining P.W.1 3 C.R.P.No.2285 of 2025 on some important information relating to the agreement of sale dated 26.11.2015 and also some other events regarding the nature of the property which could not be elicited due to mistake and oversight of the counsel previously represented the petitioner. 4. The petition was opposed by the counter filed by the plaintiffs with the averments briefly stated as follows: The allegations in the petition are denied. It is false that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser of the plaint schedule property and that the suit was collusively filed. It is a blatant lie that the fictious registered sale deed dated 27.07.2016 was preceded by three agreements of sale or that the alleged agreements were attested by the plaintiffs in acceptance of the sale. The alleged sale agreements are fabricated documents to suit the false defence. During the cross examination of P.W.1, the counsel for the petitioner cross examined the witness at length on all aspects, including the alleged agreements of sale. The evidence of the plaintiffs was closed on 07.03.2023. The affidavit of D.W.1 in chief examination was filed on 28.03.2023, along with a petition to receive the documents. Since then, the suit has been coming for cross examination of D.W.1 as he was deliberately avoiding to enter the witness box to face cross examination by citing one reason or other. Finally, on 06.05.2025, as a part of his sinister design to drag on the matter, the petitioner has come up with this petition without any valid reasons. Though the agreement of sale was sent for impounding, the petitioner did not pay the stamp duty or penalty on the document. Later, after changing the counsel, he filed a petition in I.A.No.708 of 2024 to again send only one agreement of sale dated 26.11.2015 for impounding. The petition was allowed. Accordingly, the document was impounded. It is incorrect that there is need to recall P.W.1 and further cross examine as the witness was already cross examined at length, including on the agreement of sale 4 C.R.P.No.2285 of 2025 dated 26.11.2015. The petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. 5. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the petition holding that the agreement of sale dated 26.11.2015 was not impounded as on the date of cross examination of P.W.1 and therefore, a reasonable opportunity can be given for that purpose and moreover a full fledged cross examination on that aspect would aid the Court to adjudicate the case in a better way and no prejudice would be caused to P.W.1, if the document is tendered during the cross examination. 6. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed contending that the trial Court erred in exercising jurisdiction under Order XVIII, Rule 17 C.P.C. even in the absence of material to recall P.W.1 and that non- impounding of agreement of sale as on the date of cross examination of P.W.1 is not a ground to recall P.W.1 and that there is no change of circumstances to recall P.W.1. It is further contended that the petition to recall P.W.1 cannot be allowed in a routine manner and without cogent reasons. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1. 8. Since the respondent No.2 is not a necessary party in the revision petition as he remained ex parte in the suit, hearing in the revision petition is proceeded. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners herein submitted that the witness / P.W.1 was thoroughly cross examined on the agreements of sale, particularly the agreement of sale dated 26.11.2015 and therefore, on that count, the petitioner before the Court cannot seek recall of witness. He further submitted that the other ground stated for recall of witness is that some other important events are to be elicited from P.W.1, but on such vague ground, a witness cannot be recalled, particularly as 5 C.R.P.No.2285 of 2025 the witness was thoroughly cross examined earlier on all aspects relating to the defence. He further submitted that the trial Court allowed the petition merely on the ground of cross examining the witness with reference to the agreement of sale dated 26.11.2015 without considering the fact that cross examination was done on that aspect. In addition thereto, he submitted that the evidence of the plaintiff was closed long back on 07.03.2023 and the case was posted for defence evidence on 28.03.2023 and since then there is no valid reason for filing the present petition on 06.05.2025, except to delay the trial. He further submitted that change of counsel is not a ground for the purpose of permitting recall of a witness. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the witness could not be thoroughly cross examined on the agreement of sale as the document was not impounded and cannot be tendered by the witness drawing attention to the attestation made by the witness on the said document and the said fact is material and crucial for the adjudication of main issue in the suit i.e. regarding declaration of the sale deed as null and void. He further submitted that the trial Court allowed the petition as it felt that further cross examination on this aspect would aid the Court to adjudicate in a better way and therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted. He has not mentioned anything about what other some important matters which lead to be put to P.W.1 in further cross examination. He placed reliance on the decision of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in Adaka Peda Anjaiah v. Yanamadala Seshaiah1, wherein at paragraph Nos.10(i), (vi)(vii), 11, 13 and 15 as follows: “10. No doubt, the purpose of receiving as referred supra is to exhibit through PW.5 by recall. 1 2016 SCC OnLine Hyd 341 6 C.R.P.No.2285 of 2025 (i) In Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) through L.Rs v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate (2009) 4 SCC 410, it was observed that though the provisions have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses, the main purpose of such 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 the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. (vi) Coming back to the expression in K.K. Velusamy (2011) 11 SCC 275), at para-16, no doubt it was observed that the power is, for evidence sought to be produced would, either assist in clarifying the evidence led on the issues or leads to a just and effective adjudication and not otherwise. Ultimately it is a word of caution made in para-19 that the power either under Section 151 or Order XVIII Rule 17 CP.C. is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. (vii) Where the application is found to be bonafide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the Court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the Court may exercise its discretion and if does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactics. The Court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly, the Court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly, if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. 7 C.R.P.No.2285 of 2025 11. The law referred from the two expressions supra is that if the ends of justice warrant or to prevent abuse of process, the power either under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. or under Section 151 can be exercised by the Court to permit reopen of evidence or recall of witness or for further cross examination or re-examination after evidence led by the parties. It is further observed that it is desirable that recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by argument and decision thereon within a reasonable time as per the spirit of the amended C.P.C. provisions. The Apex Court in so holding observed to make endeavour to follow the time schedule to the extent and if not followed, the purpose of amendment of the provisions would be defeated and applications for adjournments, reopen, recall or interim measures so far may be possibly avoided but for compelling and acceptable reasons to consider. 13. Coming to the other latest expression of the Apex Court in Ram Rati v. Mange Ram (died) through L.R.s, it was held that the power under XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. can be exercised including under Section 151 C.P.C. besides the specific rule supra to make orders to sub-serve the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process and coming to the provisions, the basic purpose postulated is to enable the Court to clarify any position or doubt and the Court may either suo moto or on the request of the party, recall any witness at any stage in this regard and this power can be exercised at any stage of the suit and once the Court recalls the witness for the purpose of clarification, may permit the parties even to assist the Court by examining the witness for said purpose of clarification required or permitted by the Court and it cannot be stretched any further. The power cannot be invoked to fill up the gaps and any prejudice caused or not thereby to a party by exercise of such power is also a ground for consideration in exercise of the discretion. Conclusion supra is arrived by referring 8 C.R.P.No.2285 of 2025 to K.K. Velusamy, Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar and Bagai Construction (supra). 15. Having regard to the above propositions and coming back to the facts referred supra, the purpose of receiving the three documents is for marking through PW.5 by recall. It is only to substantiate the factum of the death borne by the three registered documents as claimed, leave about such proof of death whether got any bearing on the registered mortgage and if so how far is another question, for the trial Court to decide as that is also one of the core issues of the lis.” 11. Since the respondent No.1 herein wants to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of thorough cross examination on the agreement of sale dated 26.11.2015, after it was impounded to make it admissible in evidence to read the contents, merely because there is one suggestion given to the witness that the said agreement was executed by the witness and the father of the witness, which was denied, it cannot be said that the witness was cross examined and the said agreement of sale was thoroughly in consonance with the defence taken. The reason assigned by the respondent No.1 for not being able to question on the agreement when P.W.1 was initially cross examined is just and convincing. The trial Court has passed a reasoned order as to why it is necessary to recall the witness inspite of the objection raised by the revision petitioners. The reasons need not be in several statements. If the reason is just and convincing, a single reason is sufficient. The trial Court has not permitted the petitioner to cross examine P.W.1 on any matter to the will and wish of the party recalling the witness. Of course, the reason that recalling of P.W.1 is required also to elicit some other important events regarding the nature of the property is not proper, being vague. This ground was not considered by the trial Court to recall P.W.1. 9 C.R.P.No.2285 of 2025 12. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has not committed any error in allowing the petition. 13. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.17.10.2025 PNV