Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 172
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.
Vitta Kristappa(died) rep. by LRs and others - Petitioners
Versus
E. Guru Reddy and others – Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No: 100 of 2025
Decided On : 20-03-2025
For the Petitioners: Vivekananda Virupaksha
For the respondents: A. Syam Sundar Reddy
The right to cross-examine witnesses is fundamental, and the court may allow recall of witnesses if necessary to test the veracity of evidence.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Civil Procedure Code - Order XVIII, Rule 17 - Recall of witnesses for cross-examination - The trial Court allowed the recall of witnesses PW2 to PW4 for cross-examination by the newly impleaded defendant No.40, emphasizing the right to cross-examine and the necessity of testing the veracity of evidence. (Paras 5, 9)
(B) Legal principles regarding the recall of witnesses - The power under Order XVIII, Rule 17 CPC should be exercised sparingly and not merely on the ground that no prejudice would be caused. (Paras 6, 9)
(C) Authority of Gram Panchayat - The Gram Panchayat is the competent authority for layout approval, but cross-examination of witnesses related to the case is necessary for establishing the bona fides of the defendant. (Paras 7, 9)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title over property, contesting sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1. The petitioner, a subsequent purchaser, sought to recall witnesses for cross-examination.
Findings of Court:
The trial Court's decision to allow the recall was upheld, affirming the right to cross-examine witnesses.
Issues: The main issues included the necessity of recalling witnesses and the implications of the defendant No.40's status in the ongoing litigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to cross-examine is fundamental, and the trial Court acted within its discretion in allowing the recall of witnesses.
Result: Civil revision petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.)
The revision petition is filed by the respondents Nos.2 to 6 / plaintiffs No.2 to 6 under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 20.12.2024 allowing I.A.No.222 of 2024 in O.S.No.4 of 2011, on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni, filed under Order XVIII, rule 17 C.P.C r/w Section 151 C.P.C to recall PW2 to PW4 for the purpose of cross-examination on behalf of the defendant No.40.
02. The respondents No.1 to 6 / plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title over the schedule property by nullifying sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendants Nos.2 to 20. The defendants are contesting the suit on various grounds.
03. The case of the petitioner / defendant No.40 in I.A.No.222 of 2024 is briefly as follows:
The petitioner purchased a plot from the legal heirs of the defendant No.2 without knowing the pendency of the case as his vendors are not parties to the suit. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application to implead him as a party to the suit. During the pendency of the said application, the plaintiffs filed an application to implead the legal representatives of the defendant No.2 along with an application to set aside the abetment order and to condone the delay in filing the application. Those applications were allowed and they were added as the defendants No.37 to 39 in the suit. The application of the petitioner herein to implead him was also allowed and he was impleaded as defendant No.40 in the suit. The defendant No.1 purchased the land in Survey Nos.449, 450 and 451 of Mandigiri Gram Panchayat measuring 20 acres and converted the same into plots vide L.P.No.137 of 1988 and sold it to various persons. Therefore, it is necessary to recall PW2 to PW4 for the purpose of cross-examination.
04. The respondent No.4 / plaintiff No.4 filed counter and the same was adopted by the respondents No.2, 3, 5 and 6 / plaintiffs. The averments made are briefly as follows:
The PW2 and PW3 deposed the matter in relation to the suit issues and nothing left to recall them. PW4 was examined for giving evidence relating to photos downloaded from Google earth website. The same are available in public domain and anyone can access them. Prejudice would be caused, if PW2 to PW4 are recalled. The affidavit is totally silent as to the purpose and the object for which the petitioner wants to summon them. The petitioner did not file the original sale deeds bearing No.692 of 1995 which late T.Mohanraj, the defendant No.2, is alleged to have obtained from the firm M/s. Vijaya Estate Traders / defendant No.1 and the registered document No.11723 of 2021 dated 29.10.2021 allegedly said to be obtained from the legal heirs of T.Mohanraj / defendant No.2.
05. After hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed the petition observing that the petitioner / defendant No.40 came on record recently as per the orders in I.A.No.27 of 2022 and by that time, evidence of parties was completed, and there was no occasion for the petitioner to cross examine PW2 to PW4 and also that Court cannot deprive the right of cross-examination. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition was filed.
06. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners / plaintiffs contended that there is no need to recall PW2 to PW4 as PW2 is only a commissioner who noted the features as were existing on the date of inspection and PW3, who is Tahsildar gave evidence basing on the evidence on record about the title of the plaintiff which is not in dispute and moreover PW3 retired from service and that PW4 who is grandson of the sole plaintiff (died) was examined to prove a fact limited to Googleearth map taken long back and by examining him now, no purpose would be served. He further submitted that the defendant No.40 is bound to continue the defence of the defendant No.2 on stepping into his shoes by transfer of interest pendente lite and he is bound by all the proceedings up to the stage of tr
