Point of Law: Under Section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code is not intended to be used routinely, merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona-fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence.

ORDER :

1. These two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the orders dated 16.02.2022 passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, in I.A. No. 49 of 2022 and I.A. No. 51 of 2022 in O.S. No. 19 of 2007.

2. Heard Mr. Avinash Desai, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Mr. D. Satya Siva Darshan, Advocate and Mr. C. Hanumantha Rao for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in C.R.P. No. 356 of 2022. Also heard Mr. C.V. Mohan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P. Rama Krishna, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 in C.R.P. No. 355 of 2022.

3. The brief facts germane for consideration of the present controversy, may briefly be stated thus:

The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein filed O.S. No. 19 of 2007 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Hindhupur, against the petitioner herein, and respondent Nos. 6 to 15 for grant of a decree declaring their right and title in respect of plaint schedule properties, consequential injunction and delivery of possession through Court, in the event of the Court coming to a conclusion that the defendants are in possession of the suit properties.

4. The petitioner herein, who is defendant No. 3 in the above mentioned suit, filed written statement raising several contentions. It is, inter-alia, pleaded that the findings in the earlier suit O.S. No. 7 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, which was filed for perpetual injunction operates as res-judicata between the parties and suit O.S. No. 19 of 2007 is also hit by the provisions of Order II Rule 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C.).

5. The Trial Court framed relevant issues and evidence was adduced by the respective parties. When the suit was coming for arguments, the petitioner herein/defendant No. 3, who was examined as DW-2 filed the above said application i.e. I.A. No. 49 of 2022 under Order 18, Rule 17 and Section 151 of C.P.C. to recall him for the purpose of marking certified copy of written statement of defendants Nos. 1 and 2 filed in O.S. No. 7 of 1996 on the file the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda. I.A. No. 51 of 2022 is filed under Order 8 Rule 1-A and Section 151 of C.P.C. to grant leave to produce certified copy of written statement of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the said suit. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5/plaintiffs filed counter and opposed the said applications. On dismissal of the same, the petitioner preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while contending that the order of the learned Trial Court is erroneous and unsustainable, submitted that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 19 of 2007, filed a written statement and petitioner herein/defendant No. 3 filed a separate written statement and to substantiate their plea of res-judicata etc. the written statement in O.S. No. 7 of 1996 of the defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 in the said suit were filed along with the documents in O.S. No. 19 of 2007. However, as it was noticed that the said written statement of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 filed in O.S. No. 7 of 1996 was not marked, he submits that the applications referred to above were filed. He submitted that the mistake occurred inadvertently as several documents were marked on behalf of the defendants. He further submitted that a certified copy of the written statement of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 7 of 1996 was obtained on 11.02.2022 and immediately on 12.02.2022, the above I.A. were filed. It is his submission that the said written statement in O.S. No. 7 of 1996 is very essential to substantiate the case of the defendants that the present suit O.S. No. 19 of 2007 is barred by res-judicata, that an issue is framed in this regard and an additional issue with regard to applicability of Order II Rule 2 was also framed and therefore, the written statement in O.S. No. 7 of 1996 would assist the Court in the adjudicating the issues effectively. He submitted that the learned Trial Court, however, went wrong