Telangana High Court
CRP/5759/2015 of John Prabhakar Vs Medavarapu Rama Jogarao on 31 December 2015
R. KANTHA RAO Civil Revision Petition No. 5759 of 2015 ORDER: Heard Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner is the defendant before the trial court. He filed the present revision petition challenging the orders dated 23.11.2015
HON’BLE SRIJUSTICER. KANTHA RAOCivil Revision Petition No. 5759 of 2015
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard Sri I. Koti Reddy, learned counsel appearing for therevision petitioner.
2. The revision petitioner is the defendant before the trial court.He filed the present revision petition challenging the orders dated23.11.2015 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge,Rajahmundry, in IA No.1119 of 2015 in OS No.172 of 2012 indismissing the petition filed to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination. It was submitted before the trial court that some importantquestions were not put to PW.1 in the cross-examination and the saidquestions were material to establish the contentions of the defendantand therefore, it became necessary to make an application to recallPW.1 for further cross-examination. The said petition was opposed bythe plaintiff on the ground that it was filed only to protract the trial of thesuit.
3. Obviously, the petition was filed after closure of the evidenceon both sides and the matter was posted for arguments. Before thetrial court, it was contended on behalf of the defendant that the suitpromissory note was brought into existence at the instance of oneBojja Usha Rani, who was behind the litigation, and certain importantquestions were to be put to PW.1 in that connection. The learned trialcourt recorded a finding that at the instance of the defendant, thematter was adjourned on various occasions and after closure of theevidence, once the suit was also re-opened at the instance of thedefendant. The trial court specifically held that PW.1 in the cross-examination categorically stated that he does not know Bojja UshaRani. Thus, taking the view that the petition was filed only to protract the trial of the suit, the learned court below dismissed the petition.
4. Having gone through the submissions made by the learnedcounsel appearing for the revision petitioner and also the order passedby the learned trial court, this court is of the view that the trial court hasrightly exercised its judicial discretion and dismissed the petition filedby the defendant to recall PW.1 and I do not find any valid grounds tointerfere with the order passed by the trial court. Consequently, the civilrevision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneouspetitions, pending if any in this civil revision petition, shall standclosed.
Date: 31.12.2015BSS
_________________
R. KANTHA RAO, J
HON’BLE SRIJUSTICER. KANTHA RAO
43
Civil Revision Petition No.5759 of 2015
BSS
Date: 31.12.2015