1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1675,1776 & 1779 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the parties to the matters are the same and they arise out of the same suit and common order, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Civil Revision Petitions by way of a Common Order. 2. Aggrieved by the common order dated 13.11.2024 passed in Interlocutory Application Nos.481, 482 and 483 of 2024 in Original Suit No.324 of 2010 on the file of the Court of II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahndravaram, whereby the applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to reopen the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, to recall P.W.2 for the purpose of marking documents filed along with the petition and to receive documents were dismissed, the present Civil Revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. The facts of the case that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petitions are as follows: i) The petitioners herein are plaintiffs and respondent herein is defendant in O.S.No.324 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram. During the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff No.1 died and plaintiff No.2 was brought on 2 record as legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.1. (Plaintiff No.2 shall be referred to as ‘the plaintiff’). ii) The petitioners herein/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.324 of 2010 for declaration, recovery of past profits for the years 2007-08, 2008- 09 and 2009-10 and also for recovery of future profits from the date of suit till delivery of plaint schedule property along with interest at 12% p.a. on past profits from the date of suit till the date of realization. Subsequently, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.481, 482 and 483 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC, order XVIII Rule 17 and Order VII Rule 14 (3A) of CPC to reopen the evidence on behalf of the petitioner/plaintiff, to recall P.W.2 for the purpose of marking registered sale deeds dated 16.06.1959 vide document Nos.1372 & 1373 of 1959 and to receive the said documents on the ground that the said documents were obtained recently upon verification of records in connection with O.S.No.9 of 2000 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry and they are essential for better adjudication of the suit. iii) The said applications were opposed by the respondent/defendant by filing counter inter alia contending that the petitions were filed for the purpose of marking the sale deed dated 16.06.1959 and another sale deed dated 16.06.1959, however both the 3 documents are not relevant for the purpose of the present case, and the said petitions were filed only to cover up the laches on the part of the plaintiff in adducing the evidence of P.W.1. It is further contended that the subject matter of the suit in O.S.9 of 2000 is not connected with the present suit and that the petitioners have to prove the relevancy and admissibility of documents relating to another suit, even though the documents were already marked in another suit. Moreover, the petitions were filed at belated stage without explaining the delay and were filed only to drag on the proceedings. iv) After hearing both sides, the Court below dismissed the said applications on the ground that the petitioner was in the habit of filing similar applications by producing documents in a piecemeal basis and that the petitioner did not state any reason as to why those documents were not filed at earlier point of time along with suit or at the time of filing of Interlocutory Applications on three occasions and there is no whisper as to how those documents are relevant to the case and further observed that the petitioner had not assigned any reason for the delay in filing the said documents. Aggrieved by the said common order, the petitioner/plaintiff filed the present Civil Revision Petitions. 4. Heard Sri Devi Prasad Mangalapuri, learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice, none appeared for the respondent. 4 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the affidavits filed before the Court below and the grounds of revisions submitted that the proposed documents are essential for deciding the case of the petitioner in the suit and the petitioner came to the knowledge of the documents through a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2000. He further contended that the said suit is a collusive one filed by the respondent in collusion with one Vattikuti Venkata Rayudu and after the death of Venkata Rayudu, a compromise petition was filed with the legal heirs of late Venkata Rayudu and got collusive compromise decree. He further contended that having come to know about the same, the petitioner verified the records and obtained certified copies of the documents and filed the present Interlocutory Applications seeking to reopen and recall the evidence of plaintiff and to receive and mark the same as exhibits through P.W.2. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petitions. 6. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. It is not in dispute that the Interlocutory Applications were filed after completion of the plaintiff’s evidence. The relief sought in the said applications is to reopen the evidence, to recall P.W.2 and receive certain 5 documents, namely the registered sale deeds dated 16.06.1959 bearing Document Nos.1372 and 1373 of 1959 and to mark the same. 8. The contention of the petitioner is that the said documents were obtained subsequently upon verification of records in connection with O.S.No.9 of 2000 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry and that the same are necessary for proper adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. The ground on which the Court below dismissed the applications is that the petitioner did not assign sufficient reasons for not filing the said documents earlier and that the applications were filed at a belated stage. 9. In K.K.Veluswamy v. N.Palanisamy1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that : “8. Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code enables the court, at any stage of a suit, to recall any witness who has been examined (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) and put such questions to him as it thinks fit. The power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 can be exercised by the court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting the court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the court to clarify any doubts it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties.” 10. Similarly, in Bagai Construction v. Gupta Building Material Store2, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that: 1 (2011) 11 SCC 275 2 (2013) 14 SCC 1 6 “19. We may add a word of caution. The power under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. xxxx 28. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re-examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties.” 11. In the present case, the petitioner contended that the documents sought to be produced are registered sale deeds and that the necessity to produce them arose only after obtaining certified copies upon verification of records relating to O.S.No.9 of 2000. The petitioner also stated that the said documents are essential for bringing the true facts before the Court below. Further, permitting the petitioner to file the said documents would not cause prejudice to the respondent, since the respondent would still have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness and contest the admissibility and relevancy of the documents in accordance with law at the time of marking. 7 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances and in the light of the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the Court below dismissed the Applications solely on the ground of delay, without considering whether the documents sought to be produced are necessary for effective adjudication of the suit and hence, the same warrants interference by this Court. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the common order dated 13.11.2024 passed in I.A.Nos.481, 482 and 483 of 2024 in O.S.No.324 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram is set aside. The Court below shall reopen the evidence, recall P.W.2, receive and mark the documents, subject to proof, admissibility and relevancy. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 26.02.2026 MP 8 164 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1675,1776 & 1779 of 2025 26.02.2026 MP