APHC010551212025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2769 AND 2770/2025 In C.R.P.No.2769 of 2025: Between: 1. PANDALA SAMBASIVA RAO, S/O. LATE NARSIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC GOVT. EMP., R/O.H.NO.4-20, RAMALAYAM STREET, ATMAKUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. MYLA VIJAYA LAXMI, W/o. Samgewara Rao Aged about 73 years, Occ Housewife R/o. D.No.1-289, Telephone Colony, Undavalli Center, Tadepali, Guntur ...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 set-aside the Common Order dated 25.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.40 of 2025 in O.S.No.398 of 2019 on the file of the Addl. judicial magistrate Of I class-cum-Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mangalagiri by allowing the present revision petition and pass 2 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 of all further proceedings in original suit vide O.S.No.398 of 2019 on the file of PrI Addl. judicial magistrate Of I class-cum-Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division); Mangalagiri In C.R.P.No.2770 of 2025: Between: 1. PANDALA SAMBASIVA RAO,, S/O. LATE NARSIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC GOVT. EMP., R/O.H.NO.4-20, RAMALAYAM STREET, ATMAKUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. MYLA VIJAYA LAXMI, W/o. Samgewara Rao Aged about 73 years, Occ Housewife R/o. D.No. 1-289, Telephone Colony, Undavalli Center, Tadepali, Guntur ...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 set-aside the Common Order dated 25.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.39 of 2025 in O.S.No.398 of 2019 on the file of the Addl. judicial magistrate Of I class-cum-Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Mangalagiri by allowing the present revision petition 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 of all further proceedings in original suit vide O.S.No.398 of 2019 on the file of PrI Addl. judicial magistrate Of I class- cum-Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division): Mangalagiri pending disposal of main Revision petition in the interest of Justice 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SOURI BABU DUPPATI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR 4 The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: Since the parties and the issue involved in both these cases is one and the same, they are being disposed of by this common order: 2. The respondent herein has filed O.S.No.398 of 2019 against the defendant for recovery of money on the basis of a pronote before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri. The respondent had examined three witnesses namely P.Ws.1 to 3. The petitioner herein had cross-examined P.W.1 but failed to cross-examine P.Ws.2 and 3. 3. As the petitioner had not cross-examined P.Ws.2 and 3, the trial Court had closed the cross-examination of these two witnesses. At that stage, the petitioner moved I.A.No.39 and 40 of 2025 for recalling P.Ws.1 to 3 for the purpose of cross-examination by the petitioner. The trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed both the applications by way of a common order, dated 25.08.2025. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present civil revision petitions. 4. The trial Court, after recording various delays that are said to have been caused by the petitioner has also recorded that P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined on 21.02.2025 in chief and thereafter appeared on 11.07.2025, 17.07.2025 and 18.07.2025 for being cross-examined. As neither the petitioner nor his 5 counsel had appeared, on those dates, the trial Court had closed the cross- examination and sought to proceed with the trial. 5. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand is that the earlier Advocate of the petitioner did not take interest in the matter due to which cross- examination could not be conducted and that he has now engaged a new Advocate who would be in a position to undertake the cross-examination. 6. The trial Court dealing with this specific contention was of the view that the petitioner was only seeking to drag on the matter and was not interested in participating in the trial. The trial Court relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Bagai Construction Tr.Prop v. M/s Gupta Building Material Store1 had rejected the plea of the petitioner. 7. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court. 8. Heard Sri A.Leela Krishna, learned counsel representing Sri Souri Babu Duppati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Balu Anil Kumar Palla, learned counsel for the respondent. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the delay in cross-examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 is part of a deliberate strategy of the petitioner to drag on the matter and that the facts recorded by the trial Court in 1 AIR 2013 SC 1849 6 the impugned order would be more sufficient to make out a case against the petitioner. 10. As far as P.W.1 is concerned, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case as to why P.W.1 needs further cross-examination inasmuch as no details as to how the earlier cross-examination is insufficient has been set out in the application. To that extent the recall and further cross-examination of P.W.1 would not be permissible. 11. However, as far as P.Ws.2 and 3 are concerned, since the opportunity to cross-examine them was for a period of one week, it would only be appropriate that one more opportunity is given to the petitioner to cross- examine P.Ws.2 and 3. However, the conduct of the petitioner in delaying the cross-examination would also have to be taken into account. 12. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of setting aside the common order of the trial Court, dated 25.08.2025 in I.A.Nos.39 and 40 of 2025 in O.S.No.398 of 2019, and fixing February 13, 2025 as the date on which P.Ws.2 and 3 shall be cross-examined by the petitioner. Any failure on the part of the petitioner, for any reason whatsoever, in cross-examining P.Ws.2 and 3, if they are present before the Court on that day, would result in further cross-examination of P.Ws.2 and 3 being closed. In the event of any difficulty for P.Ws.2 and 3 to appear on that date, a further date would be given and the petitioner would have to complete the cross-examination on that 7 date without fail, and no reason or excuse for delay in further cross- examination, on the adjournment date, shall be entertained. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 23.01.2026 KA 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 2769 AND 2770/2025 Date: 23.01.2026 KA