1 APHC010415212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2130/2025 Between: 1. Geetala Praveen, S/O Geetala Sankaraiah, Age 32 Years Hindu, Resident Of 1st Floor, P.K.Swami Building,Opposite.El Bethel Church Gurrala Road, Narsiptanam-531116,Ankapalli District ...PETITIONER AND 1. Manchala Gopi Sunil Kumar, S/o Swarajeswara Rao, R/o Dr.no.33-4-11, Muttandi Ramalayam Street,Rajamahendravaram ...RESPONDENT 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 Call for the records relating to the order dated 16.07.2025, passed in I.A. No. 203/2025 on the file of the Honourable II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram. and set aside the condition in the said order dated 16.07.2025 that directs the Petitioner To pay a cost of 8,12,500/- as being arbitrary, punitive, and illegal, And further Uphold the part of the order that permits the petitioner to recall and cross-examine the witness PW- 1, and direct the trial court to facilitate the said cross-examination forthwith. And pass 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 dispense with filing of the original order date 16-07-2025 copy in I.A.203 of 2 2025 in OS.21/2022 .on the file of the Ld. IIAddI Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Rajamahendravaram (FTC).and to permit the Petitioner to file the Photo copy of the order date 16-02-2022 in 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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.21 of 2022 on the file of the learned Hon’ble II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division),Rajamahendravram, pending disposal of the main revision petition, and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 extend the interim stay granted in C.R.P. No. 2130 of 2025, dated 07-11- 2025, staying all further proceedings in O.S. No. 21/2022 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram, until the final disposal of this Civil Revision Petition, in the interest of justice. It is further prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. GINJALA VIJAYA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. POTHANA RAMA KOTESWARA RAO The court made the following order: The present civil revision petition is filed being aggrieved by orders dated 16.07.2025 in I.A.No.203 of 2025 in O.S.No.21/2022 on the file of learned II Addl. Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division) (FTC), Rajamahendravaram. 2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that: 3 The petitioner is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff. The respondent filed O.S.No.21/2022 for recovery of suit amount. In the said suit, petitioner/defendant filed I.A.No.203/2025 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to re-call P.W1 for cross-examination on any condition. After hearing both the parties, the court below has allowed the said application on 16.07.2025 on a condition of depositing of Rs.8,12,500/- which is ¼th of the suit amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision petition came to be filed. 3. Heard Sri Ginjala Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pothana Rama Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision and contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application contended that, when the matter is posted for cross-examination of PW1 on 26.06.2025, the petitioner’s counsel could not appear before the court below and the court below has closed the evidence of PW1 by recording it as Nil. He further submitted that, immediately on the next day, the petitioner filed I.A.No.203/2025 to re-call P.W1 for cross-examination on any condition and the court below has allowed the said application on 16.07.2025 on a condition of depositing of Rs.8,12,500/- which is ¼th of the suit amount. He further submitted that, the trail court had failed to provide any justification for arriving at the specific figure of Rs.8,12,500/- and by virtue of the said order, the trial court has created an impossible barrier for the 4 petitioner to exercise his fundamental right to cross-examine a witness. As such prayed to allow the civil revision petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent justified the orders of the court below contending that, the petitioner is not co-operating with the trial and no proper reasons are shown for not representing the matter on 26.06.2025, as such, the court below has rightly allowed the applications by imposing costs. He further submitted that, the petitioner has not made out any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court. 6. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 7. The application filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC to re-call P.W1 for cross-examination on any condition was allowed by the court below by imposing costs of Rs.8,12,500/-. No doubt, Courts have the discretion to impose costs when allowing the recall of a witness in civil suits under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which are intended to be compensatory for the inconvenience or delay caused, rather than punitive. Judicial precedents emphasize that onerous, heavy, or unaffordable costs are equivalent to a denial of relief and a violation of the right to a fair trial. 8. In view of the above, this court is of the firm opinion that, the court below, by imposing Rs.8,12,500/- costs, has created an impossible barrier for 5 the petitioner to exercise his fundamental right to cross-examine a witness and that court below did not give any justified reasons for arriving at the specific figure. In view of the same, this court is inclined to confirm the orders of the court below dated 16.07.2025 in allowing the petition by modifying the quantum of costs to be paid by the petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order dated 16.07.2025 in I.A.Ns.203 of 2025 in O.S.No.21/2022 is hereby confirmed but by reducing the costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the petitoner to the respondents. The court below shall proceed with the suit as expeditiously as possible and the parties should cooperate with the same. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS