The Court ruled that reopening witness evidence for cross-examination under CPC Order XVIII Rule 17 is permissible only to clarify ambiguities, not to fill evidence gaps after closure, and subsequent developments not pleaded cannot justify such recall.

ORDER :

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J.

Civil Revision Petition No.2858 of 2024 is filed challenging the order, dated 22.03.2024, passed in I.A.No.392 of 2024 in O.S.No.283 of 2020 by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.2815 of 2024 is filed challenging the order dated 22.03.2024 passed in I.A.No.393 of 2024 in O.S.No.283 of 2020 by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

3. Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is interconnected and the result is interdependent, both the Revision Petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by common order.

4. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. For convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

5. Heard Sri T Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri P.Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel on record for the respondent.

6. The brief facts of the case, required for disposal of the present Revision Petitions, are that plaintiff filed the suit-OS.No.283 of 2023 against the defendant for eviction, recovery of arrears of rent, injunction, mesne profits and damages in respect of the suit schedule property; that while the said suit was pending adjudication, defendant filed applications, vide IA.No.392 and 393 of 2023, to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence and to recall PW1 for cross examination.

7. In the affidavits, filed in support of the said applications, the defendant averred that the after completion of cross-examination of PW1, the GHMC officials issued a notice to the defendant and the same was challenged by the defendant before the High Court vide W.P.Nos.41135 and 40729 of 2022; that prior to filing of the said Writ Petitions, the plaintiff filed W.P.No.18529 of 2021 before the High Court; and that all the three Writ Petitions were disposed of on 11.11.2022; that after disposal of the said Writ Petitions, the plaintiff, hand in glove with the GHMC officials, demolished the suit schedule property, in the absence of the defendant, despite the orders of the High Court not to demolish the structures and thereby, changed the nature of the suit schedule property.

8. It was further averred that PW1 has to be confronted with the afore facts which are subsequent developments after completion of cross-examination of PW1; that cross-examination of PW1 was done at his residence and that due to non-availability of the Court records, certain important questions were not posed to the P.W-1 by then counsel for defendant. Hence, it is just and essential to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence and to recall Pw1 for further cross- examination of P.W-1 for fair and just adjudication of the suit.

9. A counter was filed by the plaintiff denying the averments made in the application and it is inter alia contended that Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC can be invoked to enable the Court to get clarification of any issue/doubt with regard to the evidence led by the parties to the suit by recalling any witness so that the Court itself can put questions and elicit answers. It was further averred that affidavit in lieu o