1 APHC010072002022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] TUESDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 337/2022 Between: Nallapaneni Ramesh Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BATHALA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 372/2022 Between: Nallapaneni Ramesh Kumar, ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhrapradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. BATHALA RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following: 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.337 & 372 /2022 COMMON ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed questioning the Common Order dated 04.01.2022 in I.A.Nos. 458 and 459 of 2021 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nellore. 2. The Petitioner is the Plaintiff. A suit was filed claiming certain amounts due from the Defendants in relation to execution of additional items of work relating to Agreement No.10SE/2008-2009, dated 28.02.2009 ‘Somasila Project—South Feeder Channel—Earthwork Excavation of Baddevolu River Channel and its Minors from KM 0.00 to 15.600 including CMCD works’. After the evidence of the Plaintiff, DW.1 filed his Chief Affidavit and the case was posted for cross examination of DW.1 on 17.12.2021. On that day, the counsel for the Petitioner did not attend the Court and consequently after recording the presence of DW.1, the trial Court closed the evidence and posted the suit for arguments to 23.12.2021. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed the above applications to reopen the case by recalling DW.1 for further cross examination. In the affidavit filed by the Petitioner, it was pleaded at para No.4 that the counsel for the Petitioner was attending VII Additional District Judge Court, Gudur, on that day and could not present himself to cross examine of DW.1. 3 3. The trial Court dismissed the said application on the ground that the explanation offered by the Petitioner was not germane. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 4. Heard Sri Bathala Ramesh, learned counsel for the Petitioner. There is no appearance for the respondents eventhough Notice was served on them. 5. The reason given by the Petitioner that his counsel was held up in Gudur Court cannot be considered as a valid explanation for his absence to conduct cross examination. DW.1 being a Government Official having come to the Court, priority should have been given for cross examination of DW.1. Therefore, the explanation offered by the Petitioner cannot be sustained. However, considering that the suit is for recovery of amounts for the works said to have been done by the Petitioner, notwithstanding the explanation given by the Petitioner, one opportunity should be given to the Petitioner to cross examine DW.1 to establish his case. Therefore, the Order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the Common Order dated 04.01.2022 in I.A.Nos. 458 and 459 of 2021 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nellore, is set aside. The trial Court shall fix a date. On which date, the Petitioner shall ensure that the DW.1 is cross examined. Further, as the cause of delay is on account 4 of latches of the Petitioner, costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) shall be paid to DW.1 by the Petitioner. 7. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand dismissed as infructuous. __________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 07-01-2025 eha 5 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CRP Nos.337 & 372 OF 2022 Dt.07-01-2025 eha U