Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Batchu Jagadish Kumar vs Mogili Venkataswamy Died on 30 August, 2019
Author: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
Bench: Kongara Vijaya Lakshmi
1
KVL, J
CRP No.1757 of 2019
HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1757 of 2019
ORDER:
Aggrieved by the order dated 19.06.2019 in IA No.1141 of 2019 in OS No.100 of 2013 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala, the petitioner/plaintiff preferred the present civil revision petition. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the suit before the trial Court.
The case of the petitioner/plaintiff in brief is that, he filed the above suit seeking permanent injunction against the defendants, restraining them from in any way interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property; in the said suit, the evidence on both sides was closed and the matter was posted for arguments; at that stage, petitioner/plaintiff filed the present petition under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall DW.2 for further cross-examination on the ground that he failed to give suitable instructions to his counsel with regard to Ex.A.1 and prayed to recall DW.2 further cross-examination.
Counter-affidavit has been filed by the 5th respondent/5th defendant stating that DW.2 was subjected to lengthy cross-examination and that the I.A. is filed only to drag on the proceedings.
After considering both sides, the trial Court dismissed the said petition holding that the 'petition is not maintainable at the fag end and at the stage of arguments'.
Aggrieved by the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. 2
KVL, J CRP No.1757 of 2019 Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff submits that in order to prove Ex.A.1, recalling of DW.2 is necessary, as DW.2 in his chief examination specifically stated that Ex.A.1 was not issued by him. He further submits that to prove Ex.A.1, recalling of DW.2 is necessary and the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition.
It is well settled that no matter shall be reopened at the stage of arguments, unless and until there are compelling and suitable reasons to do so. In 'Gollu Satyavathi and Ors.Vs. Kilaparthi Apparao1', this Court while following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Bagai Construction Thr. Its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai vs. Gupta Building Material Store'2 held that unless and until compelling or suitable reasons are submitted by the petitioner, the matter posted for arguments cannot be reopened for the purpose of recalling any witness.
In the instant suit, the evidence was closed on 09.05.2019 and the matter was posted for arguments. In the impugned order, the trial Court observed that the present petition is filed forty days after closure of the evidence on behalf of defendants. On a perusal of evidence of DW.2, it is evident that a specific suggestion was put to DW.2 with regard to Ex.A.1 by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, and he was cross- examined at length. Admittedly, the suit is of the year 2013. It has now become a practice that the plaintiff or the defendant comes out with requests, much after closing of the evidence, by pleading some reason or the other, for re-opening the evidence. Though fair amount of discretion is vested in the Courts to consider such requests, unless strong reasons are pleaded and the Court is satisfied with such reasons, it is not desirable to re-open the evidence, basing on such requests. It is needless 1 2018(1)ALT503 2 AIR2013SC 1849 3 KVL, J CRP No.1757 of 2019 to observe that the suits which are kept pending for years, would get further delayed if the Courts accept such requests for re-opening of evidence, for the mere asking, without the party making out a strong reason for such reopening. In this case, plaintiff had the opportunity of cross-examination of DW.2 and in fact it was done elaborately and hence, I am of the opinion that strong reason is not made out for reopening and that the application is filed only to protract the proceedings.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as the plaintiff has failed to show any plausible reason for reopening of the evidence, when the matter is posted for arguments, I am of the considered view that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the petition and I see no reason to interfere with the order under revision, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The civil revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, in this revision petition shall stand closed.
________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J Date: 30.08.2019 BSS 4 KVL, J CRP No.1757 of 2019 HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1757 of 2019 Date: 30.08.2019 BSS