1 APHC010485582024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 2840 & 2841 of 2024 Between: Mandava Naga Bhargav ...PETITIONER AND Mandava Sneha Priya ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. S BALA MOHAN RANGA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. V V ANIL KUMAR The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: The petitioner and the respondent are one and the same in both the civil revision petitions and as both the civil revision petitions are connected, they are heard together and disposed of by this Common Judgment. 2. The present civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by orders dated 12.09.2024 in I.A.Nos.379 & 380 of 2024 in I.A.Nos.169 & 170 of 2024 respectively in H.M.O.P.No.23/2019 on the file of the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Avanigadda. 2 3. The petitioner is the husband and respondent is his wife. The petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.23 of 2019 to pass a decree of divorce in his favour by dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and respondent on the grounds of cruelty. In the said O.P., the petitioner filed I.A.No.169/2024 to recall the R.W.1 for cross-examination and filed I.A.No.170/2024 to re-open the evidence of R.W.1 for cross-examination. Both the applications got dismissed for default since there was no representation for the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.A.No.379/2024 to restore I.A.No.169/2024 (filed for recall of R.W.1 for cross-examination) and I.A.No.380/2024 to restore I.A.No.170/2024 (filed for re-open of the evidence of R.W.1 for cross- examination), under Order IX Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C., 1908. The said applications were dismissed by the court below under its order dated 12.09.2024 observing that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance in prosecuting the case. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision petitions came to be filed. 4. Heard Sri S.Bala Mohan Ranga, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Alekhya, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Anil Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. 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, on 15.11.2023, the matter was posted for cross-examination of R.W.1 and on that fateful day, the 3 petitioner’s counsel was unable to cross-examine R.W.1, as he was held up in other court, however, the court below treated the cross-examination as Nil and posted the matter for arguments. Since the cross-examination of R.W.1 is very much essential, the petitioner filed I.A.No.169/2024 to recall the R.W.1 for cross-examination and I.A.No.170/2024 to reopen the evidence of the R.W.1 for cross-examination and the said applications were posted to 06.05.2024, but the court below the dismissed the said applications as default as there was no representation for the petitioner. To restore the said applications, the petitioner filed I.A.No.379/2024 and I.A.No.380/2024 respectively. He further submitted that, those applications were also dismissed by the court below stating that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance and there was no representation on 06.05.2024 and that he is filing petitions only to drag on the case proceedings, which is of the year 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that, unless the R.W.1 is cross-examined, the petitioner cannot prove his case and the court below has failed to consider the fact that, the counsel for the petitioner could not be present 06.05.2024 because he was held up in Vijayawada court. He further submitted that the trial court ought not to have closed the cross- examination, since the petitioner can establish his case only through the cross-examination of the R.W.1. Further, the court below has failed to see that no prejudice will be caused if the said applications are restored on its file and has erroneously dismissed them under its orders dated 12.09.2024. As 4 such prayed to allow the civil revision petitions by setting aside the orders dated 12.09.2024. 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 respondent, who is working at Hyderabad, is protracting litigations in one way or the other, having identified the same, the court below has rightly dismissed the restoration applications stating that the petitioner has failed to plead bonafide reasons for non-appearance on 06.05.2024. Hence, the petitioner has not made out any valid grounds warranting the interference of this Court and the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed being meritless. 7. Perused the record and considered the submissions of both the learned counsel. 8. The petitioner had filed I.A.No.379/2024 and I.A.No.380/2024 under Order 9 Rule 9 for restoring the petitions filed for recalling R.W1 for cross- examination and reopening the evidence of the R.W.1 and the said restoration petitions were dismissed by the court below under its orders dated 12.09.2024 on the ground that, the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his non- appearance on 06.05.2024 in prosecuting the case. 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 5 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 restoration petitions (filed for recall and reopen of cross-examination) by the court below on the ground that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance is untenable and further no prejudice will caused if the said restoration applications were allowed. 9. Accordingly, both the civil revision petitions are allowed and the order dated 12.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.379 & 380/2024 are hereby set aside and I.A.Nos.169 & 170 of 2024 are restored to its file. The Trial court is directed to dispose of the said applications on merits by fixing a particular date and the petitioner shall not seek any further adjournment. No costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI BRS