Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Cheerla @ Cuddapah Naganna vs Koya Naganna on 14 December, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(1)ALD806, 2008(2)ALT595
Author: G. Rohini
Bench: G. Rohini
ORDER G. Rohini, J.
1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.9.2007 in I.A. No. 1160 of 2007 in OS No. 201 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty.
2. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, who filed the suit seeking declaration of title as well as perpetual injunction restraining the defendant/respondent from interfering with the suit schedule property.
3. The said suit was contested by the defendant and both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. While the suit was coming up for arguments, the plaintiff filed LA. No. 1160 of 2007 with a prayer to reopen the suit for recalling D.W.1 for further cross-examination, stating that it is necessary to elicit certain aspects with regard to Ex.Bl, under which the defendant claims title to the property. The said application was opposed by the defendant and the Court below by order dated 25.9.2007 dismissed the application. Hence, this revision petition by the plaintiff.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties are perused the material on record.
5. The law is well settled that the power conferred under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall any witness is discretionary, which has to be exercised by the Court judiciously having regard to the facts and circumstances of a particular case. In the instance case, evidence on behalf of both the parties has already been recorded and in the light of the material placed on record, the Court below having found that it is not necessary to recall D.W.1 for further cross-examination, dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff to reopen the suit. Such discretion exercised by the Court below on proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, does not warrant interference by this Court in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.