( 1 ) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 1022 of 2005 is directed against the order passed in i. A. No. 771 of 2005 in O. S. No. 26 of 2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, vijayawada, whereas Civil Revision Petition no. 1018 of 2005 is directed against the order passed in I. A. No. 772 of 2005.

( 2 ) DESPITE notice, none appears for the respondents.

( 3 ) FOR the sake of convenience parties to the Civil Revision Petitions are referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below.

( 4 ) SINCE both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same suit, though orders were passed in two different Interlocutory applications, these two Revision Petitions are disposed of by this common Order.

( 5 ) THE sole grievance of the petitioners who are defendants in the suit is that two applications have been filed viz. ,i. A. Nos. 771 and 772 of 2005. Whereas I. A. No. 771 of 2005 is filed under Order 18 Rule 17 and under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure to recall P. W. 1 for purpose of marking the authorization letter dated 9-8-2003, I. A. No. 772 of 2005 is filed under order VII Rule 14 (3) and under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone the delay and grant leave to file the document, which is a letter of authorization. The Court below allowed both the applications on the same day i. e. , on 9-2-2005 without giving notice to the petitioners/defendants.

( 6 ) FOR better appreciation, the order in i. A. No. 771 of 2005 is extracted hereunder:"heard. Petition is allowed to recall p. W. 1 for further Chief and Cross examination"whereas the order in I. A. No. 772 of 2005 runs as under: "heard. Petition is allowed".

( 7 ) THIS Court called for report from the district Judge, Krishna District and the learned district Judge reported back to this Court confirming that the plaintiff filed two applications on 9-2-2005 and they were allowed on the same day without issuing notice to the defendants /respondents. It further appears from the report of the learned district Judge that the defendants filed a memo stating that they are to be given opportunity to file counter affidavit in the application filed under Order 18, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. As could be seen from the report of the learned District judge, Krishna District, the said memo was rejected with the following order:"the memo rejected as the order dated 9-2-2005 on docket shows the document petition and recall petition allowed after hearing. Hence, no question of receiving counter in a disposed application to receive the same"

( 8 ) IT appears further from the report of the learned District Judge that O. S. No. 26 of 2004 along with some other suits was withdrawn from the file of II Additional District Judge, vijayawada and transferred to the file of vii Additional District Judge, Vijayawada (Fast track Court ).

( 9 ) APPARENTLY, the orders passed by the trial Court (II Additional District Judge, vijayawada) allowing I. A. Nos. 771 and 772 of 2005 filed by the plaintiff on the same day of making the said applications i. e. , on 9-2-2005 are totally erroneous. When applications had been filed, one for recalling witness for purpose of marking a document and anotherforcondoning delay and granting leave to file document necessarily the other side must be put on notice. This is an elementary principle of law. This Court is constrained to comment that even the basic principal of law has been given a total go-by by the learned II Additional District Judge, vijayawada while passing the orders impugned herein, that too, in a laconic manner. Further allowing Interlocutory applications filed by the plaintiff on the same day without putting the defendants on notice, is something very strange. The learned ii Additional District Judge, Vijayawada is hereby advised to be more careful in future.

( 10 ) FOR the aforementioned reasons, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside, including the order dated 15-2-2005 passed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document