THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE JUVVADI SRIDEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3274 of 2025

O R D E R:

Challenging the docket order, dated 01.09.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.291 and 292 of 2025 in O.S.No.109 of 2024 (old O.S.No.254 of 2014) by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Kodad, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. By the impugned order, the applications filed by the respondents-petitioners-plaintiffs under Section 151 of CPC and Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w. Section 151 of CPC to reopen and recall the evidence of PW4 for marking of endorsements on the backside of Exs.A1 and A2 were allowed.

2. Heard Mr. Shaik Madar, learned counsel for the petitioners- respondents-defendants and Ms. Charishma Atla, learned counsel representing Mr. V.Seetharama Avadhani, learned counsel for the respondents-petitioners-plaintiffs. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Sessions Court erred in allowing the applications filed by the respondents for reopening the evidence and recalling PW4 at a belated stage, after completion of arguments. The respondents have not assigned any valid and justifiable reasons and the delay is abnormal and inordinate.

Recalling PW4 for marking endorsements on the backside of Exs.A1 and A2 amounts to filling gaps in evidence, which is impermissible in law. It is a settled legal position that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 cannot be invoked to cure omissions or deficiencies after closure of evidence. The said provision is to be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, but not as a general rule. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of Judicature, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, wherein, it is held that recalling of witness at the instance of plaintiffs, that too, after completion of evidence of defendants and when matter is listed for arguments, to fill-up gap, is impermissible. Hence, he prayed to allow the revision by setting aside the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on 11.09.2025, PW4 was recalled, and the endorsements on the back side of Exs.A1 and A2 were marked as Exs.A37 to A40. The cross-examination of PW4 was deferred at the request of learned counsel for the petitioners. Since the petitioners have the opportunity to cross-examine PW4, no prejudice would be caused to them. In support of her contention, she relied on the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Dindi Veera Bhadra Rao and another v. Garlapati Vimala Rani, 2024 Supreme (Online) (AP) 1671 and drawn attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.18, 22 and 26, wherein it is held as follows:

“18. In the considered view of this court, it is not a case where the witness did not depose about the facts in his knowledge, at the time of filing of the chief affidavit. It was so deposed. The original 3 promissory notes were also marked as Exhibits A.1 to A.3. However, the endorsements on the back side of the 3 promissory notes could not be marked. So, it is not a case of filling up of lacuna by seeking to depose something which was not deposed in the affidavit.

22. The learned trial court has recorded in its order that the on hand payment endorsements are already in the record and there were every possibility to forget in marking such payment that is human error. The plaintiff did not seek to adduce the additional evidence, but wanted to mark only such endorsements. The original promissory notes are already on record and exhibited as Ex.A.1 to A.3. The trial court found the reasons assigned by the plaintiff to be proper and genuine. The trial court observed that by allowing the application, no prejudice would be caused to the defendants. The trial court also observed that though the matter was coming for arguments of respondents/defendants, but since the petitioner had shown sufficient reasons for non exhibiting of payment endorsement, the opportunity must be given to the plaintiff, irrespective of the stage of the suit.