Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Rayapaneni Umadevi vs Bheemineni Vamsi Kiran on 6 December, 2019
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.2627 & 2628 OF 2019
COMMON ORDER:
These two civil revision petitions are filed challenging the order in I.A.Nos.492 & 493 of 2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2010 passed by the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati on 28.08.2019.
The petitioners filed I.A.Nos.492 & 493 of 2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2010 under Section 151 and Order XVIII Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C') to reopen the plaintiffs' evidence and recall P.W.6 for further examination. I.A.Nos.492 & 493 of 2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2010 were dismissed of by the trial Court after hearing both the counsel. Aggrieved by the orders, the present civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, raising several contentions.
I.A.No.492 of 2019 is filed under Section 151 C.P.C to reopen the plaintiffs' evidence and I.A.No.493 of 2019 is filed for recall of P.W.6 for further examination. The allegations made in the affidavit filed in the interlocutory applications and reasons for claiming such relief are identical. Therefore, it is unnecessary to extract the contentions in both the affidavits and it is suffice to advert to the affidavit filed in one of the petitions.
The petitioners filed O.S.No.81 of 2010 for declaring the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2008 in O.S No.142 of 2008 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, obtained by defendant No.1 against defendant No.2 in respect of Plaint 'A' schedule property as null and void, as it is vitiated by fraud based on forged Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.2007 and for consequential injunction restraining defendant No.1 from obtaining registered MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 2 Sale Deed in pursuance of Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.2007 in O.E.P No.32 of 2009 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti and other consequential reliefs.
The suit was posted on 19.08.2019 for pronouncement of judgment. But, on thorough verification of evidence and pleadings, the petitioners intended to examine the attestor and scribe of registered General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale dated 16.04.2008 (Ex.A-2), enabling the petitioners to prove the execution and executants' signature in the said document to avoid technicalities and multiplicity of proceedings. It is a fact that the executants of Ex.A-2 i.e. defendant No.1 and his mother in the present case, whereabouts are not known since June, 2008. During trial, the petitioners filed a memo in I.A.No.5 of 2019 under Order XI Rule 16 of C.P.C to cause production of original Agreement of Sale dated 14.12.2007, by defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 7 in favour of defendant No.1, alleged to have been executed by defendant No.2, but for obvious reasons, they have not produced the same. Subsequently, filed I.A.No.257 of 2019 to send for Ex.A-2 from the file of Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti in O.S.No.142 of 2008 and the said petition was dismissed.
It is also contended that, during trial, the petitioners made sincere attempt to secure the presence of defendant No.2 and the attestors by name S. Mastanvali, but failed in their attempt. The attestor S. Mastanvali changed his address and defendant No.2 whereabouts are not known. Though the petitioners have examined P.W.6, one of the attestors of Ex.A-2 due to over sight and inadvertence, did not confront the signatures of defendant No.2 in Ex.A-2 through the sad witness. Therefore, P.W.6 - K. MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 3 Sasidhar Reddy is required to be recalled to confront the signature of defendant No.2 on Ex.A-2.
Fortunately, on 10.08.2019, when the petitioners along with family went to Srikalahasti, accidentally they met attestor S. Mastanvali. Immediately, the petitioners informed him about the suit proceedings and requested him to appear before the Court as a witness in the suit on behalf of the petitioners. He expressed his willingness for the same. The scribe of the document has also expressed his willingness to give evidence with regard to execution of Ex.A-2. The said attestor, scribe are very crucial to prove Ex.A-2 document.
It is further contended that, unless the evidence of plaintiffs/petitioners is reopened and P.W.6 is recalled, permitting these petitioners to examine the attestor and scribe of registered General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale dated 16.04.2008 (Ex.A-2), it is difficult for them to establish the positive case. Therefore, requested to reopen the evidence of plaintiffs, recall P.W.6 and permit them to examine S. Masthanvali, attestor and scribe of Ex.A-2.
Respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 6 filed counter affidavits with common contents, denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that the petitioners are not entitled to any reliefs for the reason that the General Power of Attorney was not a compulsory attestable document, as contemplated under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and hence to prove the signature, the question of recalling P.W.6 does not arise and nothing prevented them to prove signature when P.W.6 was examined and in fact, in the cross-examination, he was confronted with the signature of the MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 4 executants of Ex.A-2 and the suit was posted for judgment to 19.08.2019.
In the meantime, applications were filed to circumvent the case of the petitioners who filed C.R.P.No.1833 of 2019 before this Court and they were not successful to get an interim order and only to gain time, they filed the petitions to protract the proceedings endless and that there are no bonafides and consequently prayed to dismiss the petitions.
The X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, framed a point for consideration and decided the petitions holding that the petitioners are not entitled to claim the relief of reopening the evidence of plaintiffs and recall P.W.6 or summon any witnesses. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petitions are filed on various grounds.
The main ground urged is that, the evidence of P.W.6 is crucial for deciding the real controversy and more particularly, to prove General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale dated 16.04.2008 marked as Ex.A-2. Otherwise, it would lead to multiplicity of the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, this fact was not considered by the Trial Court and moreover, these petitions were filed only when the learned X Additional District Judge, Tirupati, expressed his views at the time of arguments in the suit with reference to proof of General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale dated 16.04.2008 (Ex.A-2) only and this fact was not considered by the Trail Court.
It is also contended that, the court failed to consider the judgment of the Apex Court in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy1 1 (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 275 MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 5 judgment of Madras High Court in Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited v. T.M.N. Engineering Industries2, thereby, committed an error in dismissing I.A.Nos.492 & 493 of 2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2010.
It is also contended that, C.R.P.No.93 of 2018 was allowed by the learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh on 07.02.2018, at the stage when the suit is posted for judgment for impleadment of one of the defendant in O.S.No.489 of 1997 on the file of Additional Judge-cum-VI Senior Civil Judge, City Small Causes Court, Hyderabad, and the same principle is applicable even to the present facts of the case. But, the Trial Court for one reason or the other did not consider the request of the petitioner in proper perspective and committed an error.
During hearing, Sri P. Veera Reddy learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri V. Eswaraiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, if no opportunity is given to examine the witnesses an recall P.W.6, it would be difficult for these petitioners to prove their positive case, more particularly, General Power of Attorney-cum-Agreement of Sale dated 16.04.2008 (Ex.A-2) and thereby, the petitioners would sustain substantial loss.
The reason assigned in the affidavit for recall of P.W.6 by the petitioners is sufficient cause, which prevented the petitioners from confronting the signature on Ex.A-2 to witness P.W.6 and non- examination of other witnesses i.e. attestor and scribe of the document is also properly not explained by the Trial Court bluntly 2 CRP PD Nos. 3309 to 3312 of 2011 dated 30.08.2017 MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 6 rejected the request, without assigning justifiable cause and thereby committed an error and requested to allow the civil revision petitions, setting aside the order in I.A.Nos.492 & 493 of 2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2010 passed by the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati dated 28.08.2019, thereby reopening the evidence, permitting the petitioners to recall P.W.6 and examine any other witnesses proposed to be examined.
It is also contended by Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for learned counsel for the petitioners that, when the suit is reserved for judgment by the Trial Court, the Trial Court has nothing to do with the trial of the suit, except pronouncing the judgment based on the material on record and placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others3 in support of his contentions.
Whereas, Sri S. Subba Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents while refuting the contentions of Sri P. Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, seriously contended that the petitioners filed earlier applications for the same relief which ended in dismissal and the petitioners again filed the present civil revision petitions for the same relief, without disclosing those facts and suppressing the dismissal of earlier petitions, which disentitles them to claim any relief in the present petitions. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others (referred supra), A. Rama Mohan Reddy v. A. Vijaya Kumar4.
3 AIR 1964 SC 993 4 (2019) 1 ALD 398 MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 7 D. Nagalakshmi v. D. Rosamma and another5 and Velugu Eswaramma v. Velugu Shoba Rani6 and based on the principles laid down in the above judgments, learned counsel for the respondents requested to dismiss the civil revision petitions.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the point that arise for consideration is as follows:
"Whether the evidence of petitioners/plaintiffs be reopened to enable these petitioners to recall P.W.6 or for any other purpose. If so, whether P.W.6 can be recalled for limited purpose of confronting the signature of General Power of Attorney-cum- Agreement of Sale dated 16.04.2008 - Ex.A-2, in view of the circumstances stated by the petitioners in the affidavit."
P O I N T:
It is an admitted fact that entire trial in O.S.No.81 of 2019 was completed and it was posted to 19.08.2019 for pronouncement of judgment. These petitioners filed similar applications earlier and those applications were dismissed and revision against those orders has also ended in dismissal by the Court in C.R.P.No.1833 of 2019. This fact was not disclosed in the affidavit before the Trial Court, except reference to filing petitions and inability of obtain an interim order by the petitioners.
Admittedly, O.S.No.81 of 2019 was posted for pronouncement for judgment on 19.08.2019 and when the trial is over and the judgment in the suit was reserved, the parties have no right to seek any relief, since nothing is to be done by the parties to the suit, except pronouncement of the judgment by the Presiding Officer of the Court, as held:5
(2018) 6 ALD 309 6 (2019) 3 ALD 653 MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 8 In Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others (referred supra), the Apex Court in the said judgment, held as follows:
"So far as the case before us is concerned the order under appeal cannot be sustained even on the basis that the finding recorded in disposing of an application under O. IX, r. 7 would operate as res judicata when the same question of fact is raised in a subsequent application to set aside an ex parte decree under O. IX, r. 13. This is because it is not disputed that in order to operate as res judicata, the court dealing with the first matter must have had jurisdiction and competency to entertain and decide the issue. Adverting to the facts of the present appeal, this would primarily turn upon the proper construction of the terms of O. IX, r. 7. The opening words of that rule are, as already seen, 'Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte'. Now, what do these words mean ? Obviously they assume that there is to be "a hearing" on the date to which the suit stands adjourned. If the entirety of the "hearing" of a suit has been completed and the Court being competent to pronounce judgment then and there, adjourns the suit merely for the purpose of pronouncing judgment under O. XX, r. 1, there is clearly no adjournment of "the hearing" of the suit, for there is nothing more to be heard in the suit. It was precisely this idea that was expressed by the learned Civil Judge when he stated that having regard to the stage which the suit had reached the only proceeding in which the appellant could participate was to bear the judgment pronounced and that on the terms of rules 6 & 7 he would permit him to do that. If, therefore, the hearing was completed and the suit was not "adjourned for hearing", O. IX, r. 7 could have no application and the matter would stand at the stage of O. IX, r. 6 to be followed up by the passing of an ex parte decree making r. 13 the only provision in order IX applicable. If this were the correct position, it would automatically follow that the learned Civil Judge would have no jurisdiction to entertain the application dated May 31, 1958 purporting to be under O. IX, r. 7, or pass any order thereon on the merits. This in its turn would lead to the result that the application under O. IX, r. 13 was not only competent but had to be heard on the merits without reference to the findings contained in the previous order"
In view of the law declared by the Apex Court, when the suit is reserved for judgment, question of reopen does not arise for the purpose of adducing evidence it is for the Judge to decide the matter, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others (referred supra). Once the Court completed hearing of the matter and reserved the matter for judgment, any party is not entitled to file a petition to reopen. On this ground alone, request of the learned counsel for the petitioner MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 9 to reopen the evidence is liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected.
Coming to recall of P.W.6, the reason assigned by the petitioner is that the signature on Ex.A-2 is not confronted to P.W.6, only for limited purpose, the witness P.W.6 is to be recalled. But, the respondents denied the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners while contending that the petitioners have got sufficient opportunity to confront the signature on Ex.A-2 to P.W.6. Moreover, the suit is already reserved for judgment and when there is a clear bar to reopen the evidence, question of recalling witness does not arise, more so, when there is no reason to such recall. Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C conferred power on the Court to recall or summon any witness to examine him. If, recall of a witness is based on application made by the party to the suit or proceedings, there must be some satisfactory reason to recall such witness. The circumstances in which the witness can be recalled was discussed in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) through LRs v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate7, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"In the absence of any provision providing for reopening of evidence or recall of any witness for further examination or cross-examination, for purposes other than securing clarification required under Section 151, subject to its limitations, can be invoked in appropriate cases to reopen the evidence and/or recall witnesses for further examination. If there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands earlier, or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice, subject to such terms as the court may deem fit to impose. (paras 12 and 14) The need for the court to act in a manner to achieve the ends of justice (subject to the need to comply with the law) does not end when arguments are heard and judgment is 7 (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 410 MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 10 reserved. If there is abuse of the process of the court, or if interests of justice require the court to do something or take note of something, the discretion to do those things does not disappear merely because the arguments are heard, either fully or partly. The convention that no application should be entertained once the trial or hearing is concluded and the case is reserved for judgment is a sound rule, but not a straitjacket formula. There can always be exceptions in exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstances, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court, subject to the limitation recognized with reference to exercise of power under section 151 of the Code. Be that as it may. In this case, the applications were made before the conclusion of the arguments." (para 15) This inherent power of the court is not affected by the express power conferred upon the court under Order 18 Rule17 of the Code to recall any witness to enable the Court to put such question to elicit any clarifications. The power to recall any witness under Order 17 Rule 17 can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit requesting the court to exercise the said power. The power is discretionary and should be used sparingly in appropriate cases to enable the court to clarify any issue or doubt it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties by recalling any witness so that the court itself can put questions and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for purposes of such clarification, it may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting some questions. However, this power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined.
Order 18 Rule 17 is not a provision intended to enable the parties to recall any witnesses for their further examination-in-chief or cross-examination or to place additional material or evidence which could not be produced when the evidence was being recorded. (paras 11, 9 and 10)."
In the later judgment of the Apex Court in Gayatri v. M. Girish8, the Apex Court referred on Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (referred supra) and highlighted the responsibility of the counsel appearing in the suits before the Court while placing reliance on Noor Mohammed v. Jethanand9 commenting on the delay caused due to dilatory tactics adopted by the parties and the Court was compelled to say that:
"In a democratic set-up, intrinsic and embedded faith in the adjudicatory system is of seminal and pivotal concern. Delay gradually declines the citizenry faith in the system. It is the faith and faith alone that keeps the system alive. It provides oxygen constantly. Fragmentation of faith has the effect-potentiality to bring in a reasoned verdict from a 8 [2016(3) CLJ(SC) 89] 9 (2013) 5 SCC 202 MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 11 temperate Judge but does not intend to and, rightly so, to guillotine much of time at the altar of reasons. Timely delivery of justice keeps the faith ingrained and establishes the sustained stability. Access to speedy justice is democracy and such a right is not only the creation of law but also a natural right. This right can be fully ripened by the requisite commitment of all concerned with the system.
It cannot be regarded as a facet of Utopianism because such a thought is likely to make the right a mirage losing the centrality of purpose. Therefore, whoever has a role to play in the justice-dispensation system cannot be allowed to remotely conceive of a casual approach.
And, again:
Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear as day that everyone involved in the system of dispensation of justice has to inspire the confidence of the common man in the effectiveness of the judicial system. Sustenance of faith has to be treated as spinal sans sympathy or indulgence. If someone considers the task to be Herculean, the same has to be performed with solemnity, for faith is the 'elan vital' of our system."
In all the three judgments referred supra, question came up before Apex Court as to when a witness can be recalled by exercising discretion under Order XVIII Rule 17. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance on Bagai Construction through its Proprietor Lalit Bagai v. Gupta Building Material Store10 where the Apex Court again highlighted the power of Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 and power under Section 151 C.P.C to reopen the case by recalling the witness by filing an application at the belated stage of the suit. More particularly, when the matter is posted for judgment and held as follows:
"The perusal of the materials placed by the Plaintiff which are intended to be marked as bills have already been mentioned by the Plaintiff in its statement of account but the original bills have not been placed on record by the Plaintiff till the date of filing of such application. It is further seen that during the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the Plaintiff but for the reasons known to it, still the Plaintiff has not placed these bills on record. In such circumstance, as rightly observed by the trial Court at this belated stage and that too after the conclusion of the evidence and final arguments and after reserving the matter for pronouncement of judgment, we are of the view that the Plaintiff cannot be permitted to file such applications to fill the lacunae in its pleadings and evidence led by him. As rightly observed by 10 (2013) 14 Supreme Court Cases 1 MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 12 the trial Court, there is no acceptable reason or cause which has been shown by the Plaintiff as to why these documents were not placed on record by the Plaintiff during the entire trial. Unfortunately, the High Court taking note of the words "at any stage" occurring in Order XVIII Rule 17 casually set aside the order of the trial Court, allowed those applications and permitted the Plaintiff to place on record certain bills and also granted permission to recall PW-1 to prove those bills. Though power Under Section 151 can be exercised if ends of justice so warrant and to prevent abuse of process of the court and Court can exercise its discretion to permit reopening of evidence or recalling of witness for further examination/cross-examination after evidence led by the parties, in the light of the information as shown in the order of the trial Court, namely, those documents were very well available throughout the trial, we are of the view that even by exercise of Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff cannot be permitted.
After change of various provisions by way of amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and followed by arguments and decision thereon within a reasonable time. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the same is not followed, the purpose of amending several provisions in the Code would get defeated. In fact, applications for adjournments, reopening and recalling are interim measures, could be as far as possible avoided and only in compelling and acceptable reasons, those applications are to be considered. We are satisfied that the Plaintiff has filed those two applications before the trial Court in order to overcome the lacunae in the plaint, pleadings and evidence. It is not the case of the Plaintiff that it was not given adequate opportunity. In fact, the materials placed show that the Plaintiff has filed both the applications after more than sufficient opportunity had been granted to it to prove its case. During the entire trial, those documents have remained in exclusive possession of the Plaintiff, still Plaintiff has not placed those bills on record. It further shows that final arguments were heard on number of times and judgment was reserved and only thereafter, in order to improve its case, the Plaintiff came forward with such an application to avoid the final judgment against it. Such course is not permissible even with the aid of Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure." The main endeavour of the learned counsel for the respondent is that, earlier the petitioner filed a similar application and failed to obtain an order from this Court. Moreover, the petitioner renewed his request before the Trial Court and aggrieved by the order, the present revision is filed suppressing the earlier order passed by this Court. Even otherwise, the Court cannot recall the witnesses on mere asking and the law is well settled on this point.
MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 13 Order XVIII Rule 17 C.P.C says that Court may recall and examine witness. According to it, the Court may at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. The provision consists of two limbs. The first limb is to grant permission to recall or re-examination any witness on the application and the second limb deals with the power of the Curt to recall any witness suo moto.
If the Court finds that the evidence of a particular witness is necessary and require certain clarification for effective adjudication, recording reasons for such recall or examination of any witness. But, in the present case, the first limb is alone applicable. When an application is filed to recall a witness, the petitioner has to satisfy the purpose for which the witness is to be recalled and on mere asking, the Court cannot grant any relief, unless the Court is satisfied that the evidence of recalling of witness is necessary.
In Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar v. Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate11, the Supreme Court though considered the scope of Order XVIII Rule 17 i.e. to recall of witness after examination is completed, the scheme and object and held that it is obvious that only after cross- examination of the witness that certain lapses in his evidence came to be noticed which impelled the appellant to file the application under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. Such a course of action which arises out of the fact situation in this case, does not make out a case for recall of a witness after his examination has been completed. The power under the provisions of Order 18 Rule 11 (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 410 MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 14 17 CPC is to be sparingly exercised and in appropriate cases and not as a general rule merely on the ground that his recall and re- examination would not cause any prejudice to the parties. That is not the scheme or intention of Order 18 Rule 17 CPC. The Supreme Court further held that it is now well settled that the power to recall any witness under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC can be exercised by the Court either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit, but as indicated hereinabove, such power is to be invoked not to fill up the lacunae in the evidence of the witness which has already been recorded but to clear any ambiguity that may have arisen during the course of his examination. Of course, if the evidence on re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, it is always within the discretion of the Trial Court to permit recall of such a witness for re-examination with permission to the defendants to cross-examine the witness thereafter.
In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments referred above, more particularly in Gayatri v. M. Girish (referred supra), the reason assigned by the petitioners for recall of witness cannot be accepted, more so, the conduct throughout the proceedings is blameworthy and the petitioner is filing petitions one after the other successively and dragged the proceedings successfully for years together from 2010 onwards i.e. almost for nine years. When the petitioner is guilty of such blameworthy conduct and filing petitions one after the other, though lost in one round of litigation, it is evident from his conduct that his intention is to drag on proceedings for one reason or the other sufficiently for a long time to bring the other side to come to MSM,J CRPs_2627 & 2628_2019 15 the terms of this petitioner by misusing the provisions of law and the Courts cannot encourage such conduct, as speedy justice is the need of the day. Since, I have recorded a finding that, when the suit is reserved for judgment and the parties have nothing to do with the matter, except pronouncement of judgment, by applying the principle laid down in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar and others (referred supra), the question of recalling P.W.6 does not arise. Therefore, I find that the reason assigned for recall of P.W.6 for further examination cannot be permitted. Hence, the civil revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.
In the result, civil revision petitions are dismissed, affirming the order passed in I.A.Nos.492 & 493 of 2019 in O.S.No.81 of 2010 passed by the X Additional District Judge, Tirupati on 28.08.2019.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand dismissed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:06.12.2019 sp