The court emphasized that allowing repeated cross-examination without valid reasons would cause hardship to the witnesses and that petitions filed at a belated stage without merits would not be considered.

ORDER :

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed aggrieved by the order, dated 31.03.2022 in I.A.Nos.287 and 288 of 2021 in O.S.No.671 of 2014 on the file of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

2) The above two Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners in the same suit and as such this Court is inclined to pass common order.

3) Heard Sri K. Jyothi Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.

4) The Petitioners are the defendants and the Respondents are the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 and the Defendant No.4 in O.S.No.671 of 2014, on the file of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

5) The case of the petitioners is that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed a suit in O.S.No.671 of 2014 for partition against the petitioners and Respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed I.A.No.287 & 288 of 2021 to reopen the matter and to recall Pws. 1 to 5 for further cross examination. The trial Court, on erroneous consideration of the facts, dismissed the said Petitions. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

6) Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the trial Court erred in dismissing the petition for recall of the witnesses on the sole ground that the petition was filed to drag on the case to get adjournment and the same is at belated stage having no merits and consequent to the dismissal of recall petition, reopen petition was dismissed as infructuous. The trial Court ought to have seen that one more opportunity should be given to the defendants for cross examination of the witnesses since it is the case of the defendants that some crucial questions are not put to the witnesses and that on allowing further cross examination, no prejudice would be caused either to the witnesses or the plaintiffs. The trial Court ought to have seen that the petitions like recall and reopen shall not be dismissed on mere technicalities and should assess the loss that would be caused to the parties for non calling of witnesses for further cross examination. The trial Court, without considering the legal and factual aspects, has erroneously dismissed the petitions filed by the petitioners for recall and reopen and without the cross examination as sought by the petitioners, great prejudice would be caused to the petitioners. The trial Court ought to have seen that the suit was filed even after the amicable settlement before the elders only to trouble the petitioners and to see that they will be rendered to streets, in which case, an opportunity should be given to the petitioners to put forth their entire case by way of cross examination of the witnesses, who were examined on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the petitioners pray to allow these Civil Revision Petitions, in the interest of justice.

7) Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and upon perusal of the material available on record, it appears, the petitioners filed I.A.No.287 and 288 of 2021 for reopen the case and recall PWs. 1 to 5 for further cross examination. The main contention of the petitioners is that previous counsel could not ask some important questions in the cross examination of PWs. 1 to 5. It is not the case of the petitioners that they instructed the previous counsel to ask those important questions, which he omitted to ask. On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court rightly held that allowing cross examination repeatedly without any valid reasons like change of Advocate etc., will certainly cause agony and hardship to the witnesses. The trial Court also rightly held that when the suit is at the stage of arguments, to drag on the case further, the petitioners filed the above petitions without any valid reason, and as such, the said petitions are filed at a belated stage having no merits. For the foregoing discussion, this Court do not find any valid reason to consider the Civil Revision Petitions filed by