MD. KARAMATHULA KHAN AND ANOTHER Vs. AKKIREDDY CHANDRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the orders dated 05.12.2016 in I.A. No.628 of 2016 and I.A. No.629 of 2016 in O.S. No.289 of 2013, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial, Adilabad District.

(2.) I.A. No.628 of 2016 was filed by the revision petitioners under Sec. 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') to reopen the case for further cross-examination of PW.2, whereas I.A. No.629 of 2016 was filed under Order 18, Rule 17 read with section 151 CPC, requesting to recall PW.2 for further cross-examination in respect of admission made by her with regard to Ex.A-7 that it is a forged and created document.

(3.) The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial did not accede to the request to reopen the case for further cross-examination of PW.2. He has set out certain reasons in paragraph No.11 of the order under challenge stating that when PW.2 deposed in Court as a witness, she did not whisper that under the influence of respondent - plaintiff, she made a false statement; even the written statement filed by the revision petitioners - defendants does not disclose that they did take any plea that PW.2 executed a document before the Notary stating that Ex.A-1 is forged and fabricated document and, on the other hand, in her cross-examination when a question was put, she admitted that a criminal case was registered against her, respondent - plaintiff and attestors on the complaint lodged by the revision petitioners - defendants stating that they created the signatures of executants - Ameer Khan subsequent to his death on 30.12.1994, and thereby drawn an inference that the revision petitioners filed the said application under Sec. 151 C.P.C. only to protract the litigation knowing full well that PW.2 was examined on 17.11.2014 and she was cross-examined at length. Yet another reason assigned by the Court below has been, that the revision petitioners failed to satisfy that the document now sought to be confronted to the witness was not within her knowledge or that the revision petitioners could not produce the same when they were leading evidence.