1 APHC010045472025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO I.A.No.2 OF 2025 IN SECOND APPEAL NO: 122/2025 Between: Boggarapu Sarva Rao, ...APPELLANT AND Kommanapalli Sanyasi Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: 1. N V MOHANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following Order: The respondent herein had filed O.S.No.145 of 2015, against the petitioner herein, before the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, for recovery of money based on a pro-note. This suit had decreed on 30.12.2019. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the petitioner approached the learned X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli, by way of A.S.No.04.2020. This appeal came to be dismissed on 15.11.2024. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment dated 15.11.2024, the petitioner approached this Court by way of the present Second Appeal. 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner had withdrawn the Second Appeal on 07.03.2025 and the same came to be dismissed as withdrawn on that day by this Court. 3. The petitioner has now filed the present application for recall of the said Order, dated 07.03.2025, on the ground that the learned counsel had withdrawn the Second Appeal due to some miscommunication. 4. M/s. Mallidi Aruna Sri Satya, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had instructed his counsel to raise additional grounds, which had not been drafted in the main appeal. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner misunderstood the said instruction to mean that the appeal itself should be withdrawn. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would draw the attention of this Court to two areas where necessary grounds have not been raised. The first area is that the manner in which the application filed by the petitioner, for adducing additional evidence, has been dealt with and the manner in which the interest had been awarded on the suit amount. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Appellate Court merely recorded the submissions made on both sides, in relation to the application filed for adducing additional evidence, without giving any findings or grounds why such an application should be allowed or not. She would further submit that both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court awarded interest @24% on the suit amount from the date of alleged payment of money to the petitioner till the date of suit and the same could not have been awarded as no evidence had been placed before the Court for the grant of such rate of interest. 7. Though, the Second Appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn on a specific statement made by the earlier counsel appearing for the petitioner, for the withdrawal of the Second Appeal, it would be appropriate to give an 3 opportunity to the appellant, in view of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner should be permitted to pursue his remedies on merit rather than dismiss the petition on a technicality. 9. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Order of this Court, dated 07.03.2025, is recalled and the Second Appeal is restored to file. S.A.No.122 of 2025 Notice before admission. Learned counsel for the appellant is permitted to take out personal notice on the respondent by RPAD and file proof of service in the Registry on the next date of hearing. Post on 10.10.2025. _______________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. Date: 19-09-2025 BSM