IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI

WEDNESDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 170 OF 2024

9n in fnrio® Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated fh of ²⁰²³ in O.S.No.267 of ²⁰¹⁵ on the file of the Court of the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.

Between:

• S/°"Pattabhi Ramayya, Aged ⁵⁶ years, Proprietor, Kakfnada^^^ Company, D.No.65-6-19, Tyagaraju Street Mehar Nagar,
• 2. Mummidi Papa Ratnam, W/o. Mummidi Koteswara Rao, Aged ⁴² years House wife, D.No.65-6-19, Tyagaraju Street, Mehar Nagar, Kaldnada ^

...Petitioners/petitioners

AND

• ^ Venkata Satya Appa Rao, S/o. Bangarayya, aged 48 years Di^hct village, U.Kothapalli Mandal, Pithapuram, East Godavari
• ^ ^D Kumar, S/o. Surya Prasad, aged ³⁸ years, H.No.1-2 Siddarda Nagar, Ramanayyapeta, Kakinada Rural Mandal, Kakinada.

...Respondents/Respondents

lA NO: ¹ OF 2024

Petition under Section ¹⁵¹ of CPC QtatoH in thn r-t ^ ... P^oying that in the circumstances ''I®'' therewith, the High Court may be pleased to dispense ^Z 2?7 of on"f ""T *''? dt.20-10-2023 in I.A.No.1092 of ²⁰²³ in 0,S No.267 of ²⁰¹⁵ on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada.

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI M. SRI ATCHYUT

Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED

The Court made the following: ORDER

APHC010035832024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

$3299$ WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 170 OF 2024

Between:

MUMMIDI KOTESWARA RAO, AND OTHERS

$...$ PETITIONER(S)

AND

KOTHANI VEERA VENKATA SATYA APPA RAO AND OTHERS

$...RESPONDENT(S)$

$\mathbf{I}$

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. M SRI ATCHYUT

Counsel for the Respondents:

The Court made the following:

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 170 of 2024 JUDGMENT:

P

Heard Sri M. Sri Atchyut, learned counsel for the petitioners.

This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners who are the defendants in O.S.No.267 of 2015 pending in the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, challenging the impugned order dated 20.10.2023 passed in I.A.No.l092 of 2023 in O.S.No.267 of 2015 which was filed for recall of PW ¹ for further cross-examination.

2. The said application was rejected by the learned trial Court on the ground that PW ¹ was cross-examined by the petitioners/defendants. The PW-¹ was also present on several occasions, but in spite thereof the defendants failed to cross-examine him. Consequently, the cross-examination of PW ¹ was closed. Further, the petitioners, previously, also, filed I.A.No.37 of 2022 for the recall of PW 1, which was allowed by the trial Court and they further crossexamined PW 1. The case was posted for further evidence of plaintiff's side. The present application was filed for recall of PW ¹ again for further crossexamination. The trial Court has recorded that the petitioners are not diligent in pursuing their case and their conduct shows that they are intentionally dragging on the case. The suit is for specific performance of recovery of advance amount of sale agreement.

2

3. The learned trial Court has observed that the object of the provision under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC is not intended to fill up the lacunae and that the petitioners failed to put forth any cogent reason to recall PW 1 again.

4. Undisputedly, the petitioners' previous I.A.No.37/2022 was allowed. PW 1 was recalled for further cross-examination and the defendants crossexamined him. Repeated applications for recall of the same witness for further cross-examination would not be maintainable, particularly, when in the present case the Court did not find any cogent reasons for such recall. It cannot be that a witness be recalled on mere asking of the applicant or at his convenience again and again for further cross-examination to fill the lacuna, if any. The discretion has been rightly exercised by the learned trial Court in rejecting the petitioners' application.

5. I do not find any illegally in the order of the learned trial Court. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

SD/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

• 1. The VI Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District (with records if any)
• 2. One CC to Sri M Sri Atchyut, Advocate [OPUC]
• 3. Three CD Copies

sree

DSC

HIGH COURT DATED:14/02/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.170 of 2024

$$\frac{5 \text{ copies}}{18 \text{提}}$$

DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS