THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

COMMON ORDER:

Heard Sri S.Veda Vidyanath Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record.

2. The C.R.P. No. 2888 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed in I.A. No.1211 of 2024 in O.S. No. 419 of 2013 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the trial Court’), wherein, the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) to recall the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross examination, was dismissed.

3. The C.R.P. No. 2889 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed in I.A. No. 1210 of 2024 in O.S. No. 419 of 2013 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the trial Court’), wherein, the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC to reopen the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross examination, was dismissed.

4. The case of the revision petitioner is that D.W.2, who is an official witness, got summoned by the revision petitioner/plaintiff for the purpose of production of certain documents. The said D.W.2 did not produce any of the documents which are sought by the revision petitioner instead produced some other documents and marked as exhibits. On the said date, the revision petitioner could not cross examine the D.W.2 as he was not aware of the contents of the documents produced by the D.W.2.

5. While so, the trial Court closed the cross examination of D.W.2 as ‘Nil’. When the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed petitions to reopen and recall the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 to confront the contradictions in the oral evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 and to cross examine on the exhibits marked through D.W.2, the trial Court dismissed the petitions leading to filing the present civil revision petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that fair opportunity is not given to cross examine D.W.2 and that D.W.2 produced documents which are not in the knowledge of the revision petitioner/plaintiff and therefore, the revision petitioner was not ready to cross examine the D.W.2 on the same day. To the extent that certain documents marked through D.W.2, the petitioner is entitled to cross examine the D.W.2 on the contents of the said documents.

7. Coming to the aspect of recalling the evidence of D.W.1, to further cross examine him, for confronting with the evidence produced by D.W.2, the said witness was examined in the year 2019 and was cross examined at length. The said witness sought to be recalled as certain important questions were not put during his cross examination and there is a need to confront the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.1 and vice-versa. Failure to put certain important questions cannot be a ground to recall any witnesses that too after lapse of four (04) years. Further, in case, there are any contradictions between the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2, the revision petitioner can take advantage of the same and no purpose would be served in confronting the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2 or vice-versa. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to reopen and recall the evidence of D.W.1.

8. In view of the foregoing discussions, both the Civil Revision Petitions are Partly Allowed. Consequently, I.A. Nos. 1210 and 1211 of 2024 in O.S. No. 419 of 2013 are partly allowed only to the extent of reopening and recalling evidence of D.W.2 for cross examination on the contents of the new exhibits marked. The trial Court is directed to permit the revision petitioner to cross-examine D.W.2 alone. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.

___________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 01.09.2025 gms/dpm