The High Court · 2025

6. Polampalli Srinu,, S/o Somaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ Coolie, R/o Babunagar, Kodad Town and lt/landal, Nalgonda District

7. Polampalli Yellaiah, S/o Somaiah, Aged about-47 years, Occ Coolie, R/o Babunagar, Kodad Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

8. Narsingh Laxmi, Wo Narsingh Srinu, Aged about 44^years, Occ House-wife, R/o Ba'-bunagar, Kodad Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District ... Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants AND

1. KurriSeeta Ramulu, (Died per LRs), 2. Kurri Venkamma, Wo Late Seetharamulu, Aged about 54 years, Occ House- Hold,

3. Gandham Balendra, Wo Panduranga Rao, D/o Late Kurri Seetharamulu, Aged about 36 yeais, Occ House-wife, R/o H.No 615/5, Kodad Town and Mandal, Suryapet District. ':iiir.

4. Gandham Gopamma, Wo Ra1 Kamal, D/o Late Kurri l,oetharamulu, Aged about 32 years, Occ House-wife, R/o Kodad Town arl Mandal, Suryapet District.

5. Kurri Nagaraju, S/o Late Kurri Seetha Ramulu, Aged z:out 32 years, Occ Govt. Employee,

6. Kurri Srinu, S/o Late Kurri Seetha Ramulu, Aged i tcut 28 years, Occ Student, Respondents No.2, 4 and 6 are R/o H.No (-148, Gandhinagar, Kodad Town and Mandal, Suryapet District, Responden :'[)etitioners/Plaintiffs rA NO 1 0F 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir: the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour STAY all the further proceedings in the suit in 0 S N c O.S.No 254 of 2014) on the file of Hon'ble Senior Civil Judl r disposa! of the above Civil Revision Petition, in the interest o' lrnstances stated in nray be pleased to 109 of 2024 (old at Kodad, pend ing r stice Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. Shaik Madar Counsel for the Respondents: Ms.Charishma Atla, rep. by Mr.\ . i,:etharama Avad han i. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUWADISRIDEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3274 of 2025 ORDER Challenging the docket order, dated 01 .09.2025 passed in l.A.Nos.291 and 292 of 2025 in O.S No.109 of 2024 (old O.S.No.254 of 2014) by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kodad, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. By the impugned order, the applications filed by the respondents-petitioners-plaintiffs under Section 'l 51 of CPC and Order XVlll Rule l7 r/w. Section 151 of CPC to reopen and recall the evidence of PW4 for marking of endorsements on the backside of Exs.A1 and A2 were allowed

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Madar, learned counsel for the petitioners- respondents-defendants and Ms. Charishma Atla, Iearned counsel representing Mr. V.Seetharama Avadhani, learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners-plaintiffs. Perused the record

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Sessions Court erred in allowing the applications filed by the respondents for reopening the evidence and recalling PW4 at a belated stage, after completion of arguments. The respondents have not assigned any valid and justifiable reasons and the delay is abnormal and inordinate. Recalling PW4 for marking endorsements on the I llkside of Exs.A1 and A2 amounts to filling gaps in evidence, which ; impermissible in law. lt is a settled legal position that the power unde -Order XVlil Rule 17 cannot be invoked to cure omissions or deflcien;:s after closure of evidence. The said provision is to be exercised sp, ringly and only in exceptional circumstances, but not as a general rul: ln support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the erstr,r rile High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyde-, bad, wherein, it is held that recalling of witness at the instance of plair iifs, that too, after completion of evidence of defendants and when r atter is listed for arguments, to fill-up gap, is impermissible. Hence. i e prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits l ;rt on 1 1.09.2025, PW4 was recalled, and the endorsements on the ba;k side of Exs.Al and ,A2 were marked as Exs.A37 to A40. The crt;r;-examination of PW4 was deferred at the request of learned counse c,r the petitioners. Since the petitioners have the opportunity to cross. rxamine pW4, no prejudice would be caused to them. ln support of lt,,r contention, she relied on the judgment of the High Court of Andhrir F,radesh in Dindi !i I I I Veera Bhadra Rao and another v. Garlapati Vimala Rani, and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.18, 22 and 26, wherein it is held as follows: "18. ln the considered view of this couft, it is not a case where the witness did not depose about the facts in his knowtedge, at the time of filing of the chief affidavit. lt was so deposed The original 3 promissory notes were also marked as Exhibits A.1 to A.3. However, the endorsements on lhe back side of the 3 promissory notes could not be marked. So, l ls not a case of fi ing up of lacuna by seeking to depose s,omething which was not deposed in the affidavit.

22. The learned trial courl has recorded in its order that the on hand payment endorsements are already in the record and there were every possibility to forget in markrng such payment that is human error. The plaintiff did not seek to adduce the additionat evidence, but wanted to mark only such endorsements. The original promissory notes are already on record and exhibited as Ex.A.1 to A.3. The trial court found the reasons assrgned by the plaintiff to be proper and genuine. The trial coutl obserued that by allowing the application, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. The trial court abo obseNed that though the matter was coming for arguments of respondents/defendants, but since the petitioner had shown sufficient reasons for non exhibiting of payment endorsement, the opportunity must be given to the plaintiff, irrespective of the slage of the suit. This court is of the view that the learned trial court has allowed the apptication for the well assigned reasons, in the judicious exercise of discretion vested in it under Order XVlll Rule 17 CPC

26. This Court finds that the lrial court has acted within its juisdiction and in the exercise of it discretionary power under Order Xvlll Rule 17 CPC judiciously, in advancement of justice. Such a course does not cause any prejudice to the delendanl petitioners as they may also have the right of fudher cross- examination of P.W.1 which has been recalled." Hence, she prayed to dismiss the revision. I 2024 Supreme (Ontine) (Ap) 167 t \ I I

5. Having heard the submission of both the part r s and perused the material on reccrd, it is evident that the agreements r f sare were earrier marked as Exs.A1 and A2. However, the enc c rlements on the backside of Exs.A1 and 42 were not marked by the r::pondents due to a technical flar,v, which was unintentionar. when the r atter is coming up for arguments, the respondents have filed applicati,t tr; under Seclions '151 of CPC and Order XVlll Rule 17 riw. Section 151 of CpC to reopen and recarr the evidence of pw4 for marking the enc rrsements on the backside of Exs.Al and A2. The rearned sessions . r-dge ailowed the said apprications, hording that the respondents were - rt introducing any new evidence, but onry for rectifying the earrier omis; cn of marking the endorsernents on the backside of Exs.A1 and A2 dur r g; the evidence of PW4 and it does not amount to filling gaps in evide I ;,_.. The Sessions Court found the reasons assigned by the respondenls to be proper and genuine and allowing the said apprications wourd carrr er no prejudice to the petitioners, as they were granted an opportunity c, cross examine PW4

6. lt is brought to the notice of this court by the r*, rrned counser for the respondents that on 11-09.2025, the endorsemen.r cn the backside of Exs.A1 and A2 were already marked as Exs.A37 t: ;\40 through the w evidence of PW4 and his cross-examination was deferred at the request of learned counsel for the petitioners. A perusal of the deposition dated 11.09.2025 reveals that no substantive evidence was deposed, except marking of Exs.A37 to 40.

7. Srnce the respondents did not introduce any additional evidence, except for marking of the documents, which were eariler omitted due to a technical flaw; as the petitioners have been afforded an opportunity to cross-examine PW4, as rightly held by the Sessions Court and in view of the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents, I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Sbssions Judge and the present revision is liable to be dism issed.

8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- B REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Kodad.(with records if any) 2. One CC to SRl. Shaik Madar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. V.Seetharama Avadhani, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ,.':.- n \ C) it t- 't}1, rt,r 2fl7r z I * On t * HIGH COURT DATED 2610912025 ORDER CRP No.3274 of2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED.