BADANA MUTYALAMMA AND ANOTHER Vs. PALLI APPALA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners in both the revision petitions are the defendants in O.S.No.448 of 2004 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. The petitioners filed two petitions viz., to reopen the matter and to recall P.W-1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. Both the petitioners were dismissed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge. These petitions after contest and elaborate arguments by both sides ended in dismissal by the impugned orders dated 21.08.2015 in I.A.Nos.654 & 655 of 2015 before the trial Court referred supra. The trial Court held that the defendants, petitioners herein, filed said petitions to pose certain questions and suggestions which were earlier omitted by defendants counsel, which is nothing but filling up the lacunae, that too at the fag end of the proceedings and hence dismissed. Those are now impugned in these revisions.

(2.) The learned counsel for revision petitioners reiterated grounds of revision and drawn attention to their affidavit petition before lower Court speaking the need. Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents while supporting the order of the lower Court, submits further that the affidavit is laconic as to what are the relevant questions to be put that supposed to mention, apart from impleadment of new parties and their defence put forth no way improves their case to recall P.W-1 and thereby sought for dismissal of the revision saying for this Court within the limited powers of revision, there is nothing to interfere.

(3.) Heard and perused the material on record and the decisions placed reliance by both sides in the course of their respective and lengthy submissions.