4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI ^5

MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY - ,'’^5

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE ft®
WA os]
PRESENT

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 397 OF 2023

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the

Decree and order dt.24.01.20,23 in I.A. No. 0472023 in O.S. No. 10/2018 on the
file of the Court of the l?‘ Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

Between:
1. S Nagalakshmamma, W/o.Raghuram reddy, Hindu, aged 65 Years, R / o.
Bhujanur Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District.
2. S.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.Raghuram reddy, Hindu, aged 45 Years, R/o.
Bhujanur Village, Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District

...Petitioners/Defendant No. 5 & 6

AND
1. S Munishiva Reddy, S/o. Late Narayana Reddy, Hindu, aged 56 years, R/o.
D.No. 1-41, Orvakal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.
... Res pondent/Pla i ntiff
2. S. Rameswaramma, S/o. Late S.Raghurami Reddy,
3. S. Bharath Kumar Reddy, S/o. Late S.Raghurami Reddy,
4. S. Shivashankar reddy, S/o. Late S.Raghurami Reddy,
All are R/o. Orvakal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District

...Respondents/Defendant No. 2 to 4

(Respondents No. 2 to 4 remained ex-parte in the lower court and they are not
necessary parties in this CRP)

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in
the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all
further proceedings in O.S.No.10/2018 on the file of the I Additional District
Judge, Kurnool, pending disposal of the C.R.P., in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI. J JANAKIRAMI REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents : SRI VARUN BYREDDY

The Court made the following : ORDER

 s,

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.397 of 2023

Between:

l.S. Nagalaskhmamma, W/o Raghuram Reddy,

Hindu, aged 65 years, R/o Bhujanur Village,
Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District and another.

... Petitioners/ Defendant Nos. 5 and6

And

S. Munishiva Reddy, S/o Late Narayana Reddy,

Hindu, aged 56 years, R/o D.No.1-41,
Orvakal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.

... Respondent/Plaintiff

S. Rameswaramma, S/o Late S.Raghurami Reddy,

R/o Orvakal Village and Mandal, Kurnool District and two
others.

... Respondents/Defendant Nos.2 to 4

Counsel for the petitioners : Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy

Counsel for respondents Sri Varun Byreddy

ORDER;

Defendants 5 and' 6 filed the above revision petition

against the order dated 24.01.2023 in I.A.No.04 of 2023 in

O..S.N0.IO of 2018 on the file of the I Additional District Judge,

Kurnool District.
a
i
!
 2 SRS,J
CRP No.397/2023, dt.OI .05.2023

2. 1®‘ respondent herein being the plaintiff filed suit

O.S.No.lO of 2018 against one Sri Raghurami Reddy for

recovery of amount on the: strength of registered mortgage.

Pending the suit, Raghurami Reddy died and defendant Nos.2

to 6 were impleaded as per I.A.No.286 of 2019.

3. Trail in the suit was commenced. P.W.l was present on

22.07.2022. Since defendant Noss2 and 6 are not ready, the

suit was adjourned to 01.09.2022 on payment of costs of

Rs. 100/-. P.W.l was cross-examined by the advocate appearing

for defendant Nos.2 to 4. However, the advocate appearing for

defendant Nos.5 and 6 failed.to cross-examine P.W.l. Hence,

the evidence of P.W. 1 is closed on 01.11.2022.

4. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 filed r.A.NO.4 of 2023 to recall

P.W. 1 for the purpose of cross-examination.

5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was

contended that the suit was posted to 01.11.2022 for cross-

examination of P.W.l. Due to ill-health advocate could not

present before the Court and hence P.Wl was not cross-
 3 SRS,J
CRP No.397/2023, dt.OI .05.2023

examined by the counsel of D5 and D6. Thus, application was

filed to re-open and to recall P.W. 1.

6. Plaintiff filed the counter and opposed the application.

Trial Court by order dated 24.01.2023 dismissed the

application. Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.

7. Heard Sri J. Janaki Rami Reddy, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner and Sri Varun Byreddy, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.l.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that,

non cross-examination of P.W.l on 01.11.2022 is neither willful

nor wanton. Since the counsel could not attend on that day.

P.W.l was not cross examined. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 are

contesting the suit and cross-examination of P.W.l is essential.

However, trial Court without considering these aspects

dismissed the application.

q- Learned counsel appearing for the 1®‘ respondent, on the

Other hand, would contend that no valid'reason was assigned

by the petitioner to recall P.W.l. He also would submit that

P.W.l was cross-examined by the advocate appearing for

i
fc.

4 SRS,J
CRP No.397/2023, dt.01.05.2023

defendant Nos.2 to 4 on 01.11.2022. From 01.11.2022. the suit

was adjourned to 23.11.2022. Thereafter, the application was

filed on 20.12.2022. Defendants filed the application to dragon

the proceedings.

10. The point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioners

assigned proper reasons to recall
P.W.l?

11. P.W.l was present on 22.07.2022. Since the advocate

appearing for defendant Nos.2 to 6 are not ready, the case was

adjourned to 01.09.2022 by payment of costs of Rs.100/-. On

01.09.2022. P.W.l was not present. Suit was adjourned to

27.09.2022. On 27.09.2022 also P.W.l was

called absent. At
request, it was adjourned to 01.11.2022.
On that day P.W. K
was present however since the counsel
appearing for DS and
D6 was not present
cross examination was done on their
behalf.

la. Reason assigned in the affidavit for recall of P.W.l is that,

advocate appealing for defendant Nos.4 and 5 is his illness and

/
 s

5 SRS.J
CRP No.397/2023, dtO 1.05.2023

hence he could not cross-examine the witness. In the affidavit,

it was specifically mentioned about the ill-health of the

advocate.

13. The suit is for recovery of amount on the strength of

registered mortgage. Defendant Nos.5 and 6 are contesting the

suit by filing separate written statement. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, trial Court ought to have exercised

jurisdiction vested with it. Recalling of witnesses in the facts

and circumstances will not cause any prejudice. The latches, if

any, on the part of defendant Nos.5 and 6 in cross-examining

P.W.l, trial Court could have imposed reasonable costs.

} 1^. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case order

J I
passed by the Trail Court in I.A.No.4 of 2023 is set aside.

I.A.No.4 of 2023 stands allowed on payment of costs of

Rs.2,000/- to the P.W.l. Petitioners shall pay the costs either

on the next date of hearing or within a period of two(2) weeks

from today and file receipt before the trial Court. i

/
i

6 SRS,J
CRP No.397/2023, dt.01.05.2023

15. If the plaintiff declines, to receive the amount, petitioners

shall pay the amount to the District Legal Services Authority

and file receipt. D5 and D6 shall cross-examine the witness on

the next date of hearing or on the date fixed by the trial Court.

If the defendant Nos.5 and 6 failed, to oross-exaniine the

witness on the next date of hearing, the order dated 24.01.2022

comes into operation.

16. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is

disposed of. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications

shall stand closed.

SD/- M. PADMALATHA
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \
//TRUE COPY//
To. SECTION OFFICER
1. The I Additional District. Judge, Kurnool
2. One CC to Sri. JJanakirami Reddy Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri. Varun Byreddy Advocate [OPUC]
PV
HIGH COURT
DATED:01/05/2023

ORDER
CRP.No.397 of 2023

is I "I SEP 2023 a

DISPOSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION