CRP/6064/2010 of Amirbhai Jamalbhai Vs A.Srivachalam on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

Heard Sri G.Krishna MurthY, learned counsel appearing forthe revision petitioners.

This revision petition is filed to set aside the order dated29.11.2010 passed by the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad in I.A.No.499 of 2010 in O.S.No.634 of 2010.

The impugned order was passed in relation to an applicationfiled under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure torecall DW1 for further cross examination for the purpose ofconfronting DW1 with certain documents containing facts whichare contrary to his evidence in the present suit.

The petition was opposed on the ground that the petitiondoes not contain any details and particulars of the documents withwhich the plaintiff wants to confront DW1. The learned trial courtupon considering the contentions urged allowed the petitionpermitting further cross-examination of DW1 on the reasoning thatopportunity has to be afforded to the petitioner/plaintiff to crossexamine DW1 for the purpose of confronting DW1 with thedocument where there are allegedly admissions which arecontrary to the evidence of DW1.

The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitionersplaced reliance on T.HARIBHUSHANA AND ANOTHER vT.VENKAT RAO(SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS.) ANDOTHERS[[1]],and MACHA GANGADHAR v MACHAGANGARAM[[2]]In the said judgments, it has been laid down thatunless there are convincing reasons for recalling the witness andthat the particulars of the documents with which the cross-examination is proposed to be conducted, and the details of thedocuments are not filed, the Court is justified in dismissing thepetition to recall the witness for further examination, and theground that the petitioner could not instruct his counsel properly onthe date of examination is a vague ground and the application isliable to be rejected.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in theinstant case also the Court below did not find any convincingreasons for recalling the witness, therefore, the order is liable tobe set aside.

In the affidavit, it is clearly mentioned that the plaintiffproposed to cross examine the witness with reference to certaindocuments where there are some admissions contrary to the caseof defendant. The learned trial Court took into consideration thatDW1 denied in his cross examination that he received thetermination notice but he admitted the same in another suit and thedefendant wants to confront those documents to DW1 and thelearned trial Court after exercising its judicial discretion affordedopportunity to the plaintiff to further cross examine DW1. In exercise of powers of revision, this Court is not supposed tointerfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court, which it isnot improper.

For the foregoing reasons, the revision is dismissed at thestage of admission.

________________

Date: 31.12.2010 R. KANTHA RAO,

J

kvrm

[1]AIR 2004 AP 83[2]AIR 2005 AP 178

C.R.P.NO.6064 OF 2010

DATED: 31.12.2010