Applications to recall witnesses must show compelling reasons; merely claiming inadequate prior cross-examination is insufficient.

ORDER

Since, the parties are one and the same in the Civil Revision Petitions they are being disposed of this common Order.

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order dated 18.04.2023 passed in I.A.No. 261 of 2023 and I.A.No. 262 of 2022 in O.S. No. 108 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-Cum- II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge- Cum-Principal Family Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpally (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. The respondent No.1 herein filed the subject suit for declaration, cancellation, Injunction etc., as the plaintiff vide O.S. No. 108 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 1 r/w Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code (for short ‘CPC’). The revision petitioners herein are the defendants in the above said Suit.

3. The revision petitioners herein are the petitioners in the underlying interlocutory applications.

4. C.R.P. No. 1733 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order dated. 18.04.2023 passed in the underlying interlocutory application filed by the petitioners herein vide I.A.No. 262 of 2023 under Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to re-open the evidence of plaintiff for further cross-examination of PW. 1 to 3.

5. C.R.P. No. 1749 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order dated. 18.04.2023 passed in the underlying interlocutory application filed by the petitioners herein vide I.A.No. 261 of 2023 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to re-call the PW. 1 to 3 for further cross-examination regarding the core defence of the petitioners as well as in relation to the documents filed by both parties.

6. The Trial Court upon hearing both the parties dismissed both the underlying Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioners herein by observing that the they were afforded sufficient opportunities to effectively examine the witnesses, and the record does not reflect any constraint or prejudice occasioned during that process. The contention that the witnesses were cross-examined by a "Junior Counsel" was found to be vague and unsupported by any material particulars, such as the identity of the said counsel. Further, the petitions failed to disclose the specific issues or grounds on which further cross-examination was sought and the applications were intended merely to fill lacunae in the defence, which is impermissible under the provisions of Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC.

7. Heard, Sri V. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri. G. Arun learned Counsel for respondent No.1, and perused the record.

8. The case of the petitioners herein is that they are the defendants in the suit. The evidence of the petitioners is closed and the suit is posted for the evidence of respondents. The petitioners contend that upon consultation with their Senior Counsel, they were advised that PWs 1 to 3 had not been effectively cross-examined on key issues; that the earlier cross- examination was conducted by a Junior Counsel, who failed to question the witnesses thoroughly, especially on material aspects; that the Junior Counsel merely offered general suggestions and failed to address crucial issues such as title, possession, and authenticity of documents and further contends that since the suit involves land admeasuring Ac. 1.14 guntas, they should be granted an opportunity to fully present their case through proper cross-examination.

9. The petitioners also contend that in order to facilitate further cross-examina