Telangana High Court
CRP/4549/2012 of Soumini Reddy Vs Perugu Lakshmamma on 31 December 2012
G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY C.R.P.No. 4549 of 2012 ORDER: In this Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P) assailed order dated 22- 08-2012 passed in I.A.No.840 of 2012 in O.S.No.385 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor (I.A). The petitioner herein is also the
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.
Arguments
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDYC.R.P.No. 4549 of 2012
ORDER:
In this Civil Revision Petition (C.R.P) assailed order dated 22-08-2012 passed in I.A.No.840 of 2012 in O.S.No.385 of 2001 on thefile of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor (I.A).
The petitioner herein is also the petitioner in the I.A. and 52[nd]defendant in the suit whereas the respondents herein are also therespondents in the I.A and plaintiffs and the remaining defendants inthe suit. For convenience sake, I refer the parties as arrayed in thesuit.
The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for partitionand separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The 52[nd]defendant filed the I.A. under Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C. to recall PW-1 for further cross-examination on his (52[nd] defendant) behalf on theground that by oversight certain aspects, which were covered in hischief affidavit, were not dealt with in his cross-examination which wasopposed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the cross-examination ofPW-1 was done at length and was also unnecessarily prolongedwhereas the I.A. was filed at a belated stage when the suit was postedfor arguments and further the I.A. did not even disclose about thepoints to be touched and their essentialities for cross-examining PW-1.
The Court below dismissed the I.A. on the ground that after theexamination of PW-1, four witnesses were examined on his behalfwhereas on behalf of the defendants eleven witnesses were examinedapart from which the I.A. was filed after three years of completion of thecross-examination of PW-1 whereby it was belated. The Court belowalso referred to a decision in [1]K.K. VELUSAMY v. N. PALANISAMY, but not considered thatdecision on the ground that it was not applicable to the facts andcircumstances of the case.
Learned counsel for the 52[nd] defendant would contend that byvirtue of Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC under which the I.A. was filed anywitness can be recalled for necessary examination and recording ofevidence for administering justice to the concerned parties. In factrecalling of PW-1 for further cross-examination on behalf of the 52[nd]defendant is necessary for proper adjudication of the mater and it is abonafide petition.
With regards to not giving necessary points to be covered up whilecross-examining PW-1, he has contended that if specific points aregiven therein that would alert the opposite party or parties to takenecessary steps to belie the purport of the petition. He has alsoreferred to the judgment of the Supreme Court referred above withregards to the question of recalling the witnesses even at belatedstage provided the application filed is bonafide while asserting that itis only a bonafide one.
What is important is that the application was filed afterexamining several witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff and also onbehalf of the defendants. It is also to be very much reckoned with thatthe I.A. was filed after 3 ½ years of the examination of PW-1 earlierexhaustively both in chief and cross. If PW-1 is recalled and cross-examined after 3 ½ years of his examination before the Court further, itis quite likely that lot of prejudice and hardship would be caused tohim. Having waited for such a long time during which several numberof witnesses were examined on behalf of both sides, the action takenup by the 52[nd] defendant cannot be held to be a bonafide. Apart fromthat what is important is that in the I.A. no questions to be covered upin the cross-examination of PW-1 were noted specifically. Thecircumstances make it very clear that the I.A. was filed mainly toprotract the litigation. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits. I do notfind any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Court below.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the Court below is directed to dispose of the suit within a period ofthree months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order positivelybecause it is an old one. No costs.
Conclusion
Consequent upon the dismissal of the C.R.P., miscellaneouspetitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
Date: 31-12-2012YCR
_________________________
G. KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J
[1]2001 STPL (Web) 305 SC