HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 7 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the Order dated 17- 12-2024 passed in I.A.No. 67 of 2024 in O.S.No. 3 of 2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal. Between: Udemalla Sudhakara Reddy, S/o Late U.Rami Reddy, Hindu, Business, resident of H.No. 28/848-H2-2, N.G.O's. Colony,Nandyala Town and District. ...PETITIONER AND Injeti Santhosh Reddy, S/o Siva Kesava Reddy, Hindu, Business, resident of 2-428-149-A, Main Road, Bhalaji Complex, Nandyala Town And District. ...RESPONDENT lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Order passed in I.A.N0. 67 of 2024 in O.S.No. 3 of 2022 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, pending disposal of the C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. BUDIGE BHOJA RAAM Counsel for the Respondents :SRI. K NAGA PHANINDRA The Court made the following: w APHC010026502021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) V.: * [3333] Thursday, the First day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S. Bhanumathi C.R.P No.7 of 2025 Between: Udemalla Sudhakara Reddy ..Petitioner and Injeti Santhosh Reddy ....Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Budige Bhoja Raam Counsel for the respondent Sri K. Naga Phanindra The Court made the following: 2 BSB,J C.R.P.No.7of2025 ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 17.12.2024 allowing I.A.No.67 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2022 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, filed by the defendant under Order XVIII rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C to recall PW.2 for further cross- examination. 2. The revision petitioner / respondent / plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement dated 28.01.2019. PW.2 is the He was cross-examined on Later, I.A.No.67 of 2024 was filed by the defendant to recall PW.2 stating that some more important points were forgotten by scribe of the said agreement of sale. 07.02.2024. his counsel with regard to the agreement of sale (Ex.A.2) when the witness was cross-examined and therefore, it is necessary to recall the witness. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the respondent / plaintiff stating that the reasons stated for recalling of the witness does not entitle the party to recall a witness under Order XVIII, rule 17 CPC, more particularly to fill up lacuna or omissions in the evidence inasmuch as no prejudice would be caused to either party. It is further stated that the above said provision is primarily to enable the Court to clarify any issue or doubt and such discretion can be exercised either suo motu or on the request of any party and not for the purpose mentioned by the petitioner. 3. 4. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court allowed the petition observing that the Court should be liberal in allowing this type of petitions and if this petition is dismissed, prejudice would be causedj^__ 3 BSB/J C.R.P.No.7of 2025 I the petitioner / defendant but no prejudice would be sustained by the respondent / plaintiff if the petition is allowed, in spite of the reliance placed by the respondent / defendant on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Rati Vs Mange Ram (dead) through LRs and others wherein it was held that the power under Order XVIII, rule 17 CPC cannot be exercised to fill up any omission or lacuna and on the mere ground ‘for further elaboration on the left out points’. 1 Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed by the respondent / plaintiff reiterating the grounds stated in the counter and further stating that the trial Court erred in allowing the petition by improper application of the jurisdiction under Order XVIII, rule 17 CPC. 5. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the same decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Rati (supra) which was placed before the trial Court and also on the decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in Babu Khan Vs Avtar Singh and others^, wherein the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Rati Vs Mange Ram (deceased) through LRs and others, (2016) 2 RCR (Civil) 464, was followed and also on the decision of the High Court of Madras in T.Sanjeevi Vs E.Perumalsamy^, wherein also the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Rati (supra) was followed, besides other similar prepositions. Nextiy, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of this High Court dated 18.08.2023 in CRP No.1853 of 2023, wherein by following the decisions of the Supreme Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) through LRs. Vs Sharadchandra 7. '(2016) 11 see 296 ^ 2017 Supreme (P&H) 2310 dated 20.11.2017 ^ eRP (PD)(MD) Nos.41 and 42 of 2021, dated 22.07.2021 4 BSB,J C.R.P.No.7 of 2025 Prabhakar Gogate"^ and Bagai Construction, through its proprietor Lalit Bagai Vs Gupta Building Material Store® this High Court refused the relief of recalling witness since the petitioner therein failed to show any sufficient ground as to how the evidence is required and concurred with the view of the trial Court in dismissing the petition. \ Though the petitioner seeks to recall PW2 for further cross- examination, there is no specific purpose stated to enable the Court to exercise its discretion as to whether such a recall is required or not. 8. The discretion vested on the court is not unlimited. It should be judiciously exercised. Therefore, unless the Court is satisfied that recall of a witness is required, merely because it has discretion, it cannot be exercised for mere asking sake by a party. In this case, PW2 was already thoroughly cross-examined. He is the scribe of agreement of sale. The role of a scribe is limited. As such, this Court does not see reason to recall PW2. The trial Court allowed the petition merely on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent and that the Court should adopt a liberal approach while dealing with this type of petition. The trial Court imposed costs while allowing the petition. But, imposition of costs alone justify the order. In view of the above discussion, the order is unsustainable. 9. any In the result, the revision petition is allowed setting aside the order, dated 17.12.2024, passed in I.A.No.67 of 2024 in O.S.No.3 of 2022. Consequently, I.A No.67 of 2024 is dismissed. 10. "(2009) 4 see 410 ®(20i3) 14 see 1 5 BSB,J C.R.P.No.7of2025 There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. / SD/- V SAVITRI GOWRI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, The Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nandyal, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to Sri. Budige Bhoja Raam, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K Naga Phanindra, Advocate [OPUC] 1. 4. Three CD Copies PRK HIGH COURT DATED :01/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.7 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS