The denial of cross-examination constitutes serious procedural injustice, necessitating exercise of inherent powers for fairness and justice.

ORDER :

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J.

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed aggrieved by the Docket order, dated 25.02.2025 by the learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal, in I.A. Nos.184 of 2024 and 192 of 2024 in O.S. No.2 of 2014, whereby No.184 of 2024 filed under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking to set aside the ex parte order, dated 17.04.2014 and IA No.192 of 2024 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking recall of PW.1 to PW.3 for the purpose of cross-examination.

2. Heard Sri Ajgal Ravi Babu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K.Raghavendra Reddy learned counsel appearing for respondents.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.2 of 2014 who filed a suit on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal, seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 in the said suit.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that, after service of summons, the petitioner entered appearance and filed a written statement by denying the plaint averments and specifically disputing the plaintiffs’ claim with regard to title, possession, genealogy and documents relied upon by them.

5. During pendency of the suit, the plaint was amended and pleadings were reopened. Thereafter, the suit was posted for plaintiffs’ evidence.

6. In the course of trial, the plaintiffs examined PW.1 to PW.3, and their evidence was closed, however it is alleged by learned counsel for the defendant No.1 that no opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the defendant No.1 herein, though the written statement and defence were already on their record.

7. While the suit was still pending and before commencement of arguments, the petitioner filed I.A. No.184 of 2024 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking recall of PW.1 to PW.3 for the limited purpose of cross-examination and IA No.192 of 2024 filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking recall of PW.1 to PW.3 for the purpose of cross-examination.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidences and perused the material on record and the evidence placed by parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the IA No.184 of 2024 by observing that the “reason assigned by the petitioner/D1 that due to illiteracy could not appear before the Court is totally vague and absurd. There are no sufficient ground to set aside the ex-parte order.” Subsequently, IA No.192 of 2024 was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said docket order, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petitions questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned order.

9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in law. It is further contended that the petitioner had already filed a written statement and the defence was very much on record, yet no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the petitioner to cross-examine PW.1 to PW.3.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner herein further contended that that petitioner has made his appearance after receiving notice from the Court in an implead petition and subsequently the petitioner filed his written statement as per order of the Court, dated 03.04.2023 which is much prior to the commencement of trial, as such, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents/plaintiff and