COMMON ORDER:

1st defendant in suit filed the above two revisions against the common order dated 14.12.2021 in I.A.Nos.1064 and 1065 of 2021 in O.S.No.52 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.

2. 1st respondent in the revision being the plaintiff filed suit O.S.no.52 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet seeking the following reliefs:

a) for eviction of the defendants from schedule mentioned property directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property, if in case the defendants failed to do so, the Hon’ble through its agency vacate the defendants from the suit schedule property and deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff;

b) For recovery of the rent amount due from the 1st defendant to a tune of Rs.80,000/- from 01.04.2015 to 31.08.2018 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization;

c) For recovery of the rent amount due from the 2nd defendant to a tune of Rs.1,40,000/- from 01.04.2015 to 31.08.2018 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization;

d) for suit costs etc.

3. Pending the suit, after completion of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, 1st defendant filed I.A.No.1064 of 2021 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen the suit and I.A.No.1065 of 2021 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross-

examination.

4. In the affidavit, it was contended inter alia that during the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 and his witness P.W.2, earlier counsel did not put up relevant questions. Plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 22.07.2019 and thus, filed I.A.No.1064 of 2021 to reopen the suit and recall evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 on 25.10.2021 and hence, prayed to allow the applications.

5. 1st Respondent/Plaintiff filed counter and opposed the application. In the counter, it was contended inter alia that the petition is filed only to drag on the proceedings and to fill up lacunas and hence, prayed to dismiss the applications.

6. Trial Court by common order dated 14.12.2021 dismissed the applications. Aggrieved by the same, present two revisions are filed.

7. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would contend that the suit is filed for eviction and for other reliefs. While P.Ws.1 and 2 were cross-examined, relevant questions were not put to the witnesses in the light of the defence raised by the defendants. He would also contend that the suit is coming up for the evidence of D.W.1. If P.Ws.1 and 2 are further cross- examined, no prejudice will be caused and in fact, it will help to court to dispose of the lis judiciously. He would also contend that the trial Court failed to appreciate that the suit is only at trial stage and hence, recalling of P.Ws.1 and 2 is necessary for proper adjudication of the case.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/ plaintiff would further contend that only to fill up the lacunas, the interlocutory applications are filed to drag on the proceedings and hence, prayed to dismiss the revision.

10. The point that arise for consideration is:

Whether the 1st defendant has shown sufficient cause to reopen the suit?

11. The suit, as observed supra, filed for eviction. Revision petitioner/1st defendant filed written statement and is contesting the suit.

12. In Vadiraj Nagappa Vernekar (Dead) through L.Rs. v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate1, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under:

25. In our view, though the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. have been interpreted to include applications to be filed by the parties for recall of witnesses, the main purpose of the said Rule is to enable the Court, while trying a suit, to clarify and doubts which it may have with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said provisions are not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined.

26. As indicated by the learned Single Judge, the evid