THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1869 AND 1871 OF 2014 Dated:16-07-2014 Between:
E. Venugopal ... PETITIONER AND M. Mahender Reddy and another .. RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1869 AND 1871 OF 2014 COMMON ORDER:
The respondents filed O.S No. 167 of 2009 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the petitioner for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 05-05-2008. The petitioner opposed the suit by filing a written statement. The trial of the suit was concluded with the examination of PWs 1 to 4 as witnesses for the respondents and DW 1 for the petitioner. It is at the stage of arguments, that the petitioner filed I.A Nos. 22 and 23 of 2014 with a prayer to reopen the suit and to recall PWs 1 to 4 for further cross examination. The trial Court dismissed the I.As through common order dated 01-04-2014. Hence, these two C.R.Ps.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents who filed caveat.
On the face of it, the applications filed by the petitioner are untenable. In a given case, the trial Court can certainly reopen the suit or recall witnesses, however, valid basis must be laid for that. In the instant case, the only reason mentioned by the petitioner for reopening the suit and recalling PWs 1 to 4 is that his earlier counsel did not cross examine the witnesses effectively. The relevant portion in the affidavit reads as under:
“Now my earlier Advocate could not done effective cross examination and ingredients of Agreement of sale and moreover they themselves write the blank signed papers and filed a false case against me. Now my counsel want to cross examine the pw 1, 2, 3 & 4 on Exhibit P1 and other documents. As such it is and just and necessary to cross examining pw 1, 2, 3 & 4 to eliciting real truths on singed blank papers i.e, Non Judicial Stamp Papers/Agreement of sale.”
It hardly needs any mention that with the conclusion of cross examination of witnesses, a particular state of affairs comes into existence and the rights of the parties have to be determined on the basis of such evidence. If the witnesses are recalled for further cross examination just for the asking of it, the very sanctity of deposition of witness suffers a serious dent. The trial Court has taken the correct view of the matter and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders under revision.
The C.R.Ps are accordingly dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J 11h July, 2014 ks