APHC010532182025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2842 & 2843 OF 2025 Between: 1. NAKKA NARASIMHULU, (DIED) REP.BY HIS L.R.S 2. M.B. PARVATHI, W/O LATE NAKKA NARASIMHULU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC- HOUSEWIFE 3. N. UMA MAHESWARA RAO, S/O LATE NAKKA NARASIMHULU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS 4. N. ARUN KUMAR, S/O LATE NAKKA NARASIMHULU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS 5. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, S/O LATE NAKKA NARASIMHULU AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS 6. N. SREE KRISHNAKANTH, S/O LATE NAKKA NARASIMHULU AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS (ALL ARE R/O D.NO. 20-1- 456/CL, MARUTHI NAGAR, KORLAGUNTA TIRUPATI TOWN, TIRUPATI DISTRICT) ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. A SOWBHAGYAMMA BHAGYAMMA, W/O V.K. ARUMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. V K JAGADEESH, S/O V.K. ARUMUGAM, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O D.NO. 18-4-111/14, 2ND CROSS, RAILWAY COLONY, TIRUPATI 2 3. P PADMAVATHAMMA, W/O P. RAMACHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 355, CHURCH ROAD, MARUTHI NAGAR, M.R. PALLI, TIRUPATI (RESPONDANT 1 AND 2 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M L NEELIMA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. KOCHIRI RAJA SHEKAR 2. 3 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the orders dated 11.07.2025 in I.A.Nos.165 of 2025 and 164 of 2025 respectively in O.S.No.44 of 2017 on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tiruapti. 2) The petitioners herein, who are the plaintiffs in the said suit, filed I.A.No.164 of 2025 under Section 151 of CPC seeking to reopen the suit for the purpose of cross-examination of DW 1 and I.A.No.165 of 2025 under Order 18 Rule 17 and Section 151 of CPC seeking to recall the D.W.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. The 3rd defendant / 3rd respondent, who was examined as D.W.1 in the said suit is aged about 90 years. 3) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also learned counsel for the respondents. 4) The learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions with reference to the grounds raised in the memorandum of revision and sought to impress upon the Court the circumstances in which the present applications are filed seeking to reopen the suit and recall the D.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination. It is her contention that as the evidence of D.W.1 / 3rd defendant was not recorded properly as urged in ground No.5, the necessity to conduct further cross-examination of D.W.1 arose and the learned Trial Court without considering the matter in the proper perspective dismissed the applications referred to above. She also submits that the counsel who represented the petitioners / plaintiffs on the earlier occasion had not conducted the cross-examination of D.W.1 in a proper manner and unless 4 further cross-examination of D.W.1 is permitted, the petitioners would suffer serious and irreparable loss and great hardship. Making the said submissions, learned counsel urges for allowing the Civil Revision Petition. 5) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents made submissions, inter alia, to the effect that the evidence of the parties was closed on 04.04.2024 and thereafter the matter was coming up for hearing. At that stage, the petitioners / plaintiffs filed I.A.No.719; 720 & 721 of 2024 to reopen the evidence of plaintiffs and recall P.W.2 for the purpose of marking the documents and for adducing evidence on behalf of P.W.1. He submits that the said applications were dismissed on 18.09.2024 and revision petitions against the said orders are pending before this Court. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners / plaintiffs having failed to secure orders in I.As., filed by them, filed the present applications in question in February, 2025 and the learned Judge after considering the matter had rightly rejected the same. He submits that the petitioners / plaintiffs with a view to protract the matter filed the I.As., in question and the order of learned Trial Court does not suffer from jurisdictional error. Making the said submissions, the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the Revision Petitions. 6) On an appreciation of the submissions made, the point that arises for consideration is “Whether the orders under Revision are liable to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case?” 7) As noted earlier, the learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions with reference to the grounds raised in the revision petition. 5 However, as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the IAs., in question, it is discernible that the D.W.1 was sought to be recalled only on the ground that the petitioners / plaintiffs have not cross-examined her due to oversight with reference to some of the documents. Nothing is specifically stated as to which of the documents i.e. Exs.B1 to B44 with reference to which D.W.1 was not cross-examined. Be that as it may. The learned Trial Court after considering the matter and by placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in M/s. Bagai Construction Tr.Prop. Vs. M/s. Gupta Building Material Store 1 as also other decisions of this Court dismissed the applications in question. 8) In A. Rama Mohan Reddy & Others vs. A. Vijaya Kumar & Another2 relied on by the learned Trial Court, it was inter alia held as follows: “The recalling of witness at the instance of the plaintiffs, that too, after completion of the evidence of the defendants and when the matter is listed for arguments, to fill-up a gap, being impermissible, the order under Revision, allowing recall of a witness suffers from irregularity.” 9) Considering the matter in its entirety, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the orders under challenge. Hence, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. 10) Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 21.11.2025 Ssv 1 (2013) 14 SCC 1 2 2019 (1) ALD 398 6 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2842 and 2843 of 2025 Date: 21.11.2025 Ssv