The right to cross-examine witnesses is a substantive right essential for a fair trial, and the pursuit of substantive justice must prevail over technical procedural formalities when considering the recall of witnesses.

The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT:

The petitioners and the respondents are one and the same in both the civil revision petitions and as both the civil revision petitions are connected and they arise out of the common order, they are heard together and disposed of by this Common Judgment.

2. The present civil revision petitions are filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by orders dated 23.06.2025 in I.A.Nos.82 & 83 of 2025 respectively in O.S.No.50/2019 on the file of the Court of the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasaraopet.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants. The petitioners/petitioners filed O.S.No.50/2019 for declaration of title and for grant of permanent injunction. In the said suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.82/2025 to re-open the evidence of D.W1 and D.W2 and filed I.A.No.83/2025 to re-call D.W1 and D.W2 for cross-examination. Both the applications got dismissed on the ground that, the petitioners, intentionally filed the applications, without any reason and evidence like medical certificates, date of admission, discharge summary, medical admission and other relevant proof of his wife (2^nd petitioner/plaintiff). Aggrieved by the said orders, the present revision petitions came to be filed.

4. Heard Sri J.V.Siva Sai, learned counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri GVS Mehar Kumar, learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent. No representation for Sri K.Gopal Krishna, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revisions and contents of the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory applications contended that, since the 2^nd petitioner/plaintiff was admitted in hospital for treatment and their counsel went to Bangalore for his treatment, the petitioners’ counsel was unable to cross-examine DW1 and DW2 on 22.11.2024 & 12.12.2024 respectively and the court below treated the cross-examination as Nil and posted the matter for arguments. Since the cross-examination of DW1 and DW2 is very much essential, the petitioners filed I.A.No.82/2024 and I.A.No.83/2024 to reopen and recall the DW1 and DW2 for cross-examination but the court below had dismissed the said applications on the ground that, the petitioners, intentionally filed the applications, without any reason and without any evidence like medical certificates, date of admission, discharge summary, medical admission and other relevant proof of 2^nd petitioner/plaintiff.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would further contend that, unless the DW1 and DW2 are cross-examined, the petitioners cannot prove their case and the court below has failed to consider the fact that, the counsel for the petitioner could not be present on 22.11.2024 & 12.12.2024 because he went to Bangalore for his treatment. He further submitted that the trial court ought not to have closed the cross-examination, since the petitioners can establish their case only through the cross-examination of the DW1 and DW2.

Further, the court below has failed to see that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the said applications are allowed and has erroneously dismissed them under its orders dated 23.06.2025. As such prayed to allow the civil revision petitions by setting aside the orders dated 23.06.2025.