GIDDALURU PARVATHAMMA Vs. KETHU RAGHUVENDRUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 10 -02 -2012 in I.A.No.71 of 2012 in O.S.No.67 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Proddatur, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC for recall of PW.1 for further cross -examination, was dismissed.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and perused the records.

(3.) A perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the present application would show that the defendant has stated that PW.1 for the first time in his evidence in chief -examination deposed about the aspects like delivery of possession, permission to effect repairs to the schedule property and particulars thereof and there was no reference in the pleading to the said aspects and, therefore, PW.1 needs to be further cross -examined regarding the same. It cannot, therefore, be said that the petitioner/defendant has not set out the aspects of proposed cross -examination at all in the affidavit while filing the fresh application, pursuant to the liberty granted to her by this Court. The petitioner/defendant cannot be expected to reveal the exact questions that would be put to PW.1 in the cross -examination in advance, as the same would defeat the very purpose of cross -examination inasmuch as the petitioner/defendant has sufficiently indicated the areas pertaining to which she proposed to further examine PW.1. There has been sufficient compliance with the earlier order passed by this Court while granting the liberty to file fresh application. The impugned order dismissing the application for recall of PW.1 is, therefore, unsustainable and is accordingly, set aside. Consequently, I.A.No.71 of 2011 stands allowed and PW.1 is permitted to be recalled for further cross -examination. The petitioner/defendant shall, however, complete the cross -examination of PW.1 on the date fixed by the court below without seeking any further adjournment.