1 APHC010391612025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2015 & 2016 of 2025 Between: 1. NARE SRI HARI, S/O. CHOUDESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/O. D. NO. 3-33-114/A, NGO COLONY, RAMIREDDY PETA, NARASARAOPETA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. NARE PADMAVATHI, W/O. SRI HARI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O. D. NO. 3-33-114/A, NGO COLONY, RAMIREDDY PETA, NARASARAOPETA TOWN AND MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. PASUPULETI BALA KRISHNA, S/O. SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O. D. NO. 24-26-83, 15TH LINE, NALLACHERUVU GUNTUR TOWN GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. LAAM KOTESWARA RAO, S/O. VENKATA SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O. PAMIDIPADU VILLAGE NARASARAOPETA MANDAL GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SREEKANTH REDDY AMBATI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2 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, they are heard together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. 2. The present civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by orders dated 23.06.2025 in I.A.Nos.82 & 83 of 2025 respectively in O.S.No.50/2019 on the file of the Court of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioners/petitioners filed O.S.No.50/2019 for declaration of title and for grant of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.82/2025 to re-open the evidence of D.W1 and D.W2 and filed I.A.No.83/2025 to re-call D.W1 and D.W2 for cross-examination. Both the applications got dismissed on the ground that, the petitioners, intentionally filed the applications, without any reason and evidence like medical certificates, date of admission, discharge summary, medical admission and other relevant proof of his wife (2nd petitioner/plaintiff). Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision petitions came to be filed. 4. Heard Sri J.V.Siva Sai, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri GVS Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the 2nd 3 respondent. No representation for Sri K.Gopal Krishna, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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, since the 2nd petitioner/plaintiff was admitted in hospital for treatment and their counsel went to Bangalore for his treatment, the petitioners’ counsel was unable to cross-examine DW1 and DW2 on 22.11.2024 & 12.12.2024 respectively and the court below treated the cross-examination as Nil and posted the matter for arguments. Since the cross-examination of DW1 and DW2 is very much essential, the petitioners filed I.A.No.82/2024 and I.A.No.83/2024 to reopen and recall the DW1 and DW2 for cross-examination but the court below had dismissed the said applications on the ground that, the petitioners, intentionally filed the applications, without any reason and without any evidence like medical certificates, date of admission, discharge summary, medical admission and other relevant proof of 2nd petitioner/plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that, unless the DW1 and DW2 are cross-examined, the petitioners cannot prove their case and the court below has failed to consider the fact that, the counsel for the petitioner could not be present on 22.11.2024 & 12.12.2024 because he went to Bangalore for his treatment. He further submitted that the trial court ought not to have closed the cross-examination, since the petitioners can establish their case only through the cross-examination of the DW1 and DW2. 4 Further, the court below has failed to see that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the said applications are allowed and has erroneously dismissed them under its orders dated 23.06.2025. As such prayed to allow the civil revision petitions by setting aside the orders dated 23.06.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent justified the orders of the court below contending that, the petitioners, 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 dismissed the applications giving cogent reasons. He further submitted that, the petitioners have not made out any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court, however, if this court inclines to interfere, a direction may be given to the court below to fix a particular date and time for conducting cross-examination. As such prayed to pass appropriate orders in that regard. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. As could be culled out from the record and submissions made in the cases, it is evident that, not only the petitioners but their counsel was also not present before the court for cross-examination of DW1 and DW2, as such the court below has recorded the cross-examination as nil. To reopen and recall the DW1 and DW2 for cross-examination, the petitioners have filed applications under Order XVIII rule 17 vide I.A.No.82/2024 and I.A.No.83/2024 5 respectively. Since both the applications were dismissed, the present civil revisions are preferred. 9. Order XVII 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. 10. Cross-examination is considered as a crucial tool for uncovering the truth, testing witness credibility and exposing biases or inconsistencies in testimony. Courts have emphasized that the opportunity to cross-examine is not merely a formality but a substantive right. Denial of this opportunity is a serious flow that can render a court’s order a nullity. While the court must control the proceedings to prevent abuse, it must always ensure that the parties are given a realistic and adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses as the same is essential for a fair trial. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme court has frequently upheld that the advancement of substantive justice must always be the prime criterion over technical procedural formalities. In view of the same, dismissal of the applications filed for reopen and recall of DW1 and DW2 for cross-examination, by the court below on the ground that, the petitioners, intentionally filed the applications, without any 6 reason and without any evidence like medical certificates, date of admission, discharge summary, medical admission and other relevant proof of 2nd petitioner/plaintiff, is untenable, particularly when it was stated that the 2nd petitioner and their counsel as well are undergoing treatment and further no prejudice will caused if the said said applications were allowed. 11. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are allowed and the order dated 23.06.2025 in I.A.Nos.82 & 83 of 2025 are hereby set aside, consequently, I.A.Nos.82 & 83 of 2025 are allowed. The Trial court is directed to fix a particular date for cross-examination for DW1 and DW2 and the petitioners shall not seek any further adjournment without any valid reasons. It is made clear that, if the petitioners failed to cross-examine DW1 and DW2, the court below shall proceed with the suit. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS