1. Somanaboina Pavani v. Somanaboina Sudhakar

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant extension of the interim orders passed in lA No. 1 of 2024 dt. '18-'10-2024 in CRP NO. 2266 of 2024. Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. GAYATHRI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI BHASKAR GORLA CI'VIL REVISI ON PETI TION NO | 2385 0F 2024 petition Under Article 227 of constitution of lndia aggrieved by the orderdatedl9.06-2024passedinl.A.No.83ot2024ino.S.No.77of2016'on thefileoftheCourtofthePrincipalJuniorCivilJudgeatRamannapet,Yadadri Bhongir District. Between 1 ) Somanaboina Pavani, Wo Jai Kishan Prasad.Age .3! Vrs, Occ Agjiculture' A/o. kat<t<iren village of Ramannapet Mandal Yadadri Bhongiri Dist ' l 5 Somanaboina Radha, Wo Ravinder Age 35 -!rs, XLxii"niVirrig" of Rarnannrpet Mandal, Yadadri Bhongir Dist , T S Ocl Aqric^ulture R/o ...PETITIONERS AND Somanaboina Sudhakar, S/o Late. Rama Lingaiah. Agri"J[rt" R/o Kakkireni Village of Ramannapet M Dist, T S Age. 56 Yrs., Occ: andal Yadadri Bhongir ...RESPONDENT IANO:1OF 2024 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of 2016 including all trial proceedings on the tr rt1."i pioceedings' in O.S. No. "ir fileofthe.Hon'blePrincipalJuniorCivilJudgeatRamannapet'YadadriBhongir District pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition' '77 IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant extensionoftheinterimorderspassedinlANo.lof2o24dtls.l0-2024inCRP No. 2385 ol 2024 Counsel for the Petitioners: Smt. GAYATHRI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI BHASKAR GORLA The Court made the following ORDER: I{ON'I}I,E SRI JUSTICI.] I,AXMI NARAYANA ALISHI,,TTY CIVIL REVISION PI].I.I'IION Nos.2266 and 2385 of 2024 OR.DER: Civil Revision Petition No.2266 of 2024 is filed challenging the docket order, dated 1g.06.2024, passed by the principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet in I.A.No.84 of 2024 in OS.No.77 of 2016, whereunder petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 CpC praying the Court to recall P.Ws. I and 2 for the purpose of cross- examination was allowed.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.2385 of 2024 is filed challenging the docket order, dated 19.06.2024, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramannapet in I.A.No.83 of 2024 in OS.No.77 of 2016, whereunder petition filed under Order XVIII Rule l7 CpC praying the Court to reopen the case for the purpose of cross- examination of P.Ws.l and 2 was allowed.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision petitions is interconnected and the result is interdependent, both the Revision Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by common order.

4. The revision petitioners herein are the plaintiffs and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit before the trial Court. i I I ") LNA, J CRP.Nos.2266 & 2.185 oJ 2024

5. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be ref.erred to as they are arraved in the suit.

6. Heard Smt Gayathri, learned coungel for the revision petitioners and Sri G.Bhaskar, leamed counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire material available on record. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the defendant has filed the aforesaid applications nearly about 1 LA years front the date of cross-examination ofl p.Ws.l and 2, that too at the l-ag end ol the suit. i.e., at the tirne of arguments. without giving anl..justifiable grounds for the delay that occurred in filing the said applications; that the trial Court has misconstrued and grossly failed to interpreted the reasons mentioned by defendant for recalling P.Ws. I and 2 lor further cross-examination; and therefore. she prayed this Court to allow these Civil Revision Petitions.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that the trial C'our1, by duly taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, has rightty allowed the aforesaid I LNA, I CRP.Nos.2266 & 2385 of 2024 applications, giving cogent and convincing reasons and therefore, the impugned orders does not call fbr interlerence by this Courl.

9. Leamed counsel lor the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Couft in Ram Rati Vs. Mange Rom (dead) through L.Rs and otherst,judgment of the Rajasthan I-Iigh Courr in Arjun Lal Vs. Pappu Lal @ Ramprasad and othersz,judgrnent of Dharwad Bench of Kamataka High Court in Leeletlevi and unother Vs. Narayan (deutt) through LRs and anothers, judgment olthis Court in CRP.No.1212 of 2013 and in Sandeep Guptu ond olhers Vs, Stote of Telangana and olhersa and the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State ol I'elangana and State ol Andhra Pradesh in CRP.No.1624 of 2018.

10. 'l'his Court has thoroughly gone through the aforesaid judgments. This Court has no quarrel with regard to the larv laid down and the principles enunciated as regards exercise of powers o1'the Court under Order XVIII Rule l7 CPC. 1 (2016) 11 scc 296 ' 20tz scc online Raj 3196 3 ILR 20fl KAR 3557 o 2O23SCC Online TS 490 .1 I-NA, J CRP.Nos.2266 & 2385 oJ 2024 I l. Horvever, the facts of the case, grounds/reasons put forth by the parties in the said cases for recalling of the witness(es) for fufther cross-examination are completely different to that of the present case. therefore, the same are not applicable to the present

12. Perusal of the record would disclose that the suit was coming up for arguments on 22.0r.2024 and at that stage, the defendant filed two applications under Order XVIII Rule 17 CpC for re-opening olthe suit and to recall of p.Ws.l and 2 for the purpose of cross-examination on the ground that due to ill health, he could not be personalll' present rvhen the cross-examination of p.ws.l and 2 was done by his counsel and therefore, he could not fumish some important details of the case to his counsel. 13. The delendant further contended that on verification of cross-examination of p.Ws. t and 2, he found that some important points were missing, therefore, the aforesaid applications are filed. 14. Howe'n.er. the defendant failed to give cogent reasons for filing the ,r.l:yd applications at belated stage, that too, without i I I I 5 LNA, J CRP,Nos.2266 & 2385 of 2024 giving any details as to the points which were missed by his counsel while cross-examining P.Ws' 1 and 2'

15. In considered opinion of this Court, the reasons set out by the defendant does not inspire confidence of this Court'

16. It is settled principle of law that a party cannot be permitted to fill the lacuna in the evidence at a belated stage' Further' it is also well established principte of law that power of the Courts under Order XVIII Rule l7 CPC has to be sparingly exercised and only in appropriate cases where proper and reasonable grounds are made out. However, in the present case, no proper reasons or grounds are made out by the delendant lor reopening of the suit and recalling P.Ws. I and 2 for the purpose of cross-examination' l'7 . It is also relevant to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Clourt in Bagai Construction Vs' Gupta Building Mslerial Srore5, relied upon by the leamed counsel for the petitioners, wherein it is held as hereunder:- "Though power under Section l5l can be exercised d ends of justice so warranl and to prevent abuse of process ofCourt and Court can exercise its discretion to 5 (2013) 14 scc 1 I 6 LNA, J CRP.Nos.2266 & 2385 of 2024 permit reopening of evidence or recalling of wintess for further examinatio,/cross examination after evidence led by the parties, in the light of the information as slrcwn in the order of the trial Cowt, .nomely, those docurnenls were very well avoilable throughout the trictl. "

18. Further. at para-15 o1'the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as hereunder:- "Afier change of various provisions by way of amttndtnent in CPC, it is desirable that the recording of evidence should be continuous and -followed by orgltntct'tls and decisiort thereon within a reasonable timc. This Court has repeatedly held that Courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. If the sam<' is not followed. the purpose of amending sevtzral provisions in the Code would get de.fealed. In Jbct, applications .for adjouttrnents, reopening and rectlling are interim meosures, could be as far as po.s,;ihle avoided and only in compelling and acceptable red.\ot1s, those applications arc to be considered.'

19. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the legal position, this Courl is of the considered opinion that the applications filed by the defendant are devoid of any merits and that too llled at belated stage, i.e., when the suit was coming up for Y t: 167Y 1 I 1 LNA, J CRP.Nos.2266 & 2385 ol 2024 arguments and therefore, the trial Court erred in allowing the aforesaid applications.

20. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision petitions are allowed and the impugned orders passed by the trial court are set aside. 21. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. I To Sd/- K AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Ramannapet, Yadadri Bhongir District 2. One CC to Smt. GAYATHRI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. BHASKAR GORLA, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies kul/Pl{ 2/ I HIGH COURT OATED:241021202!; COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.2266 and 2385 ot 2024 -r*;:-r rA ?B p, Tnil s' :\ 1fr I 1-,:' _:- + t.-, -n,-rtt { ALLOWINGTHE BOTH CIVIL REV!SION PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS 7 4t -'-------:- , " -- {q,/+,/<2