IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the power to recall witnesses is discretionary and should only be exercised in the interest of justice, not to remedy prior omissions.

ORDER :

Heard Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned Senior Counsel, representing Sri M. Mallesham, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Smt. Chinthalaphani Avani Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This Civil Revision petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.2024 passed in I.A.No.216 of 2024 in O.S.No.21 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Peddapalli.

3. PERUSED THE RECORD.

4. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE :

The petitioner herein in the present CRP is the defendant in the main suit O.S.No.21 of 2021 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge at Peddapalli.

The respondent herein had filed the main suit for recovery of money based on promissory note dated 05.04.2012 and original cheque bearing No.601632. Thereafter, on 17.03.2017 the petitioner/defendant field elaborate written statement and issues had been settled on 07.09.2017. Thereafter, the respondent herein/plaintiff filed her evidence affidavit on 12.09.2019 and the same is treated as PW1 evidence and Ex.A1 to A3 are marked. Thereafter, PW1 was cross examined on four occasions from 23.09.2019 to 02.03.2020. On perusal of the cross examination of PW1 dated 02.03.2020 there is reference to Ex.A3 and the petitioner herein to further cross-examine PW1 with regard to Ex.A3. The petitioner herein filed I.A.No.216 of 2024 stating that the respondent herein who is plaintiff in suit O.S.No.21 of 2021 and adduced the evidence of herself and another as PW1 and PW2.

The evidence of PW1 revealed about filing of Income Tax returns and that the said important aspect had not been confronted with PW1 about Ex.A3 and also not cross examined her in respect of that aspect. To examine on this aspect, the petitioner herein who is the defendant in the main suit prayed that PW1 may be recalled for further cross-examination on the ground that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/plaintiff, if PW1 is recalled.

The respondent in the present C.R.P., who is the plaintiff in the suit O.S.No.21 of 2021 which is filed with a prayer as under:

A) A decree for recovery of Rs.16,84,800/- made up of Rs.10,80,000/- principal amount and Rs.6,04,800/- towards interest @ 24% per annum from 06.08.2012 to 06.12.2014 from the defendant.

B) A decree for future interest @ 24% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.10,80,000/- from the date of filing of the suit to till the date of realization of the entire loan amount.

C) Costs of the suit and

D) Ant other relief.

5. The petitioner herein who is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.21 of 2021 on the file of Family Judge-cum-District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar filed written statement on 17.03.2017 itself in the main suit O.S.No.21 of 2021 and in particular paragraph No.7 of the said written statement is extracted hereunder:

“7. That the defendant submits that the allegations in Para 3 of the plaint in the suits in O.S. No. 221 of 2014 and 220 of 2014 alleged that the plaintiff in O.S. No. 221 of 2014 mobilized an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- from her relatives. There is no mention of the names of the relatives from whom the amounts are mobilized. There are no particulars at all with regard to their capacity to give such huge amounts to the plaintiff and also it is not stated whether any one of them are income tax assesses and whether they have showed the amounts in their Income Tax Returns. It is also not stated in the plaint whether the said amount was credited in her bank account and issued cheque for Rs. 15,00,000/- to this defendant. Further, neither of the plaintiff in O.S.No.221 of 2014 and 220 of 2014 showed the said amounts in their respective Income Tax Returns.”

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions in support of petitioner’s case:

(i) The order of the Court below is illegal, contrary to law and facts, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

(ii) The Learned Judge erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner to recall