THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON Nos.789 and 820 of 2025

COMMON ORDER

Since the issue involved in these two Revisions is arising out of the same Suit, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Mr. Arvind Babu Kolla, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Nyayapathi Prashant, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Civil Revision Petition No.789 of 2025 is filed assailing the order dated 30.12.2024, in I.A.No.1161 of 2024 in O.S.No.907 of 2022, passed by the IX Additional District Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar; and Civil Revision Petition No.820 of 2025 is filed assailing the order dated 30.12.2024, in I.A.No.1160 of 2024 in O.S.No.907 of 2022, passed by the IX Additional District Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar.

4. Vide the impugned orders, the Trial Court dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking for recalling of the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination and also dismissed the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking for reopening the evidence of PW.1 for the purpose of cross-examination.

5. At the outset, this Court is of the firm view that the view expressed by the Trial Court does not seem to be in any manner erroneous or arbitrary, nor can it be said to be bad in law.

6. Perusal of the pleadings would go to show that the evidence of PW.1 was at the first instance recorded on 07.08.2024. Since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner herein to cross-examine PW.1, the evidence of PW.1 was closed with no cross-examination and the matter was posted for defendant’s evidence. Subsequently, I.A.Nos.920 and 921 of 2024 were filed seeking for reopening and recalling the evidence of PW.1 for cross-examination. The said petitions stood allowed vide order dated 23.10.2024, and the matter was posted for further cross-examination on 12.11.2024.

7. On 12.11.2024 also in spite of the fact that, PW.1’s evidence was reopened and he was present before the Court, but the learned counsel for the petitioner who was to cross-

examine PW.1 did not appear, and the counsel who represented the petitioner contended that he was not ready to cross-

examine.

8. Neither the petitioner has been able to show any justifiable grounds on which the adjournment was sought on 12.11.2024, inasmuch as no adjournment petition was filed and no proof of the grounds on which the adjournment was sought and not cross-examining PW.1 was available in the pleadings before the Trial Court, nor before this Court in the instant Revisions. In the absence of which, this Court does not find any error so committed by the Trial Court in so far as present case is concerned while dismissing the I.A.Nos.1160 and 1161 of 2024. 9. Further, perusal of the records would also go to show that there have been no substantial documents produced before this Court in the instant Revisions to prove the contention of the petitioner.

10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that no strong case has been made out by the petitioner calling for an interference to the impugned orders passed the Trial Court.

The instant Revisions thus fail, and are accordingly, rejected.

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

_____________ P.SAM KOSHY, J Date: 02.05.2025 GSD