LAWS(APH)-2009-4-83

A LAKSHMI DEVI Vs. C SUDHAKAR REDDY

Decided On April 06, 2009
A LAKSHMI DEVI Appellant
V/S
C SUDHAKAR REDDY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE civil revision petitions are filed by the unsuccessful petitioners/defendants being aggrieved of the orders made in I. A. No. 1446/2008 and i. A. No. 1447/2008 in O. S. No. 531/2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kumool.

(2.) THE petitioners filed LA. No. 1446/2008 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure (hereinafter in short referred to as "code" for the purpose of convenience)to reopen the plaintiff's evidence and to recall P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 for further cross-examination. Likewise, I. A. No. 1447/2008 was filed by the petitioners/defendants to recall P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 for further cross-examination. The learned Principal Senior civil Judge, Kurnool after referring to the respective stands taken by the parties in brief, formulated the following Point for consideration at para-3 : Whether the petitioners made out a case to reopen plaintiff's side to recall P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 for further cross-examination ?. The learned Judge recorded certain reasons at para 6 and ultimately dismissed the said applications. Aggrieved by the same, these civil revision petitions had been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) SRI Subrahmanyam Kurella, the learned Counsel representing the revision petitioners in these civil revision petitions would maintain that the learned Judge should have appreciated the fact that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and necessary to reopen the plaintiffs evidence and also to further cross-examine P. W. 1 to P. W. 3. The learned counsel also would person that the learned judge ought to have appreciated that on crucial aspects when further P. W. 1 to P. W. 3 to be cross-examined, the disclosure of such crucial aspects would cause lot of prejudice to the petitioners. The Counsel also had taken this Court through certain dates and would maintain that absolutely there was no delay on the part of the revision petitioners and they had been prosecuting the litigation with all diligence and this aspect also to be taken into consideration and due opportunity to be given to the revision petitioners.