1 APHC010224742025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 1147 & 1148 of 2025 Between: 1. Abburi Sundara Rao, S/o.Bhaskar rao, aged about 51 years, R/o.Dr.No.5-331, Teachers colony, Venkatapuram, Eluru mandal, West godavari district. ...PETITIONER AND 1. Muvvala venkata raju, s/o. Somaraju, GPA holder of Vennekuti Bharat aged about 52 years, R/o.Dr.No.7b-6-6, Eastern Street, Eluru, West Godavari District. 2. Adabala Naga Syama Sundara Rao, (DIED). 3. Elaparti Sitaratnam Mary Ratnam, W/o. Late Bala Swamy, Housewife, r/o.Dr.No.1-107, Veeravalli, Balapadu Mandal, West Godavari District. 4. Adabala Suryavathi, W/o. Late Adabala Naga Syama Sundara Rao, Aged About 54 years, R/o.Dr.no.1-8, Prakash Nagar, Bogapuram village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari district. 5. Adabala Uma Maheswara rao, S/o. Late Adabala Naga Syama Sundara rao, Aged about 36 years, R/o.Dr.no.1-8, Prakash Nagar, Bogapuram village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari district. 6. Adabala Vijaya Phanindra, s/o. Late Adabala Naga Syama Sundara Rao, aged about 33 years, R/o.Dr.No.1-8, Prakash Nagar, Bogapuram village, Pedavegi Mandal, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition being. Aggrieved by the order and decree Dt.18.02.2025 made in I.A.No.66/2025 in O.S.No.59/2014 on the file of the court of The I Addl. District Judge, Eluru IA 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.59/2014 on the file of The Court of The I Addl. District Judge, Eluru, pending disposal of the above CRP and to pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to vacate the interim stay orders, dated 08.05.2025 (Eighth day of May Two Thousand Twenty Five) and passed in IA.No.01/2025 in CRP.No.1147/2025, on the file of the Hon’ble Court in the ends of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. UDAY KUMAR VAMPUGADAVALA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C VENKAIAH 2. Yadlapalli Sitharamanjaneyulu The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: The petitioners and the respondents are one and the same in both the civil revision petitions and as both the civil revision petitions are connected and they arise out of the common order passed in Interlocutory applications filed in the same suit, they are heard together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. 3 2. The present civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by orders dated 18.02.2025 in I.A.Nos.66 & 67 of 2025 respectively in O.S.No.59/2014 on the file of the Court of the learned I Addl. District Judge, West Godavari District. 3. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petitions are that: The petitioner is the 1st defendant, 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the respondent nos.2 to 6 are the defendant nos.2 to 6 in the O.S.No.59/2014 filed for declaration of title and for grant of permanent injunction. In the said suit, plaintiff filed I.A.No.66/2025 to re-open the evidence of P.W1 for the purpose of marking of documents and filed I.A.No.67/2025 to re-call P.W1 for the purpose of marking of documents. Both the applications were allowed by the court below on 18.02.2025 on the ground that, the document which is sought to be exhibited was already before the court below and referred in the plaint and in the chief-evidence. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petitions came to be filed. 4. Heard Sri V.Uday Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Venkaiah, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revisions and contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory applications contended that, the court below has erroneously allowed the applications, filed for recall and reopen of the PW1 for 4 marking of documents, at the belated stage, that too after adjourning the matter for several times. As such prayed to allow the civil revision petitions. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents justified the orders of the court below contending that, the petitioner, in order to cause much inconvenience to the respondents, are protracting litigations in one way or the other and having identified the same, the court below has rightly allowed the applications giving cogent reasons. He further submitted that, the petitioner has not made out any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC, 1908 envisages that, the Court may at any stage of a suit, recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) and put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. The power to recall a witness rests with the court and can be exercised suo moto (on its own motion) or upon an application by a party but this power is discretionary, should be used sparingly, and not to fill gaps (lacunae) in a party's evidence, acting primarily for the court's own understanding, though parties can request it. 9. It is not in dispute that documents now sought to be received was pleaded in the plaint. Even otherwise, relevancy of the same cannot be decided at the stage of receiving the documents. Further, it is always a right 5 cast upon the other party to oppose for marking and for consideration of the document at the stage of marking. 10. In the case of Levaku Pedda Reddamma v. Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that : “It is well settled that rules of procedure are hand made of justice and therefore, even if there is some delay, the trial Court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself.” 11. This court has to see whether any prejudice is caused to the parties and if found that any prejudice is cause, the same has to be remedied by imposing costs as was held in the above referred decision. 12. In view of the above, the court below having allowed the applications ought to have imposed costs which would compensate the other party for causing delay. However, the petitioner had failed to plead or urge as to what prejudice would be caused to him if the said documents were received. In view of the same, this court is inclined to confirm the orders of the court below dated 18.02.2025 imposing costs on the plaintiff. 12. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are disposed of and the order dated 18.02.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.66 & 67 of 2025 respectively in O.S.No.59/2014 are hereby confirmed subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the plaintiff to the 1st defendant within two(02) weeks from the date of 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 533 6 receipt of copy of this order. The court below shall proceed further as expeditiously as possible and the parties should cooperate with the same. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS