IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
'P
*7“
PRESENT
lO
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY^ ^
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 3098 AND 3099 OF 2013
aVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3098 OF 2013
Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India
against
the Docket Order dated 02.07.2013 passed in I.A.No.249
of 2013 in
O.S.No.786 of 2009
on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge
and
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Anaparthi
East Godavari
District.
Between:
Botta Appa Rao, S/o.Katam Raju, Aged 55 years, R/o.Ambatipeta,
Bikkavolu Village, Bikkavolu Mandal, East Godavari
District.
...Petitioner/Defendant
AND
Bera Govindu, S/o.Veerraju, Aged 38
years, R/o.Ambatipeta, Bikkavolu
Village, Bikkavolu Mandal, East Godavari District
i
...Respondent/Plaintiff
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3099 OF 2013
Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, against
the Docket Order dated 02.07.2013 passed in I.A.No.248
of 2013 in
O.S.No.786 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the
Junior Civil Judge and
Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Anaparthi,
East Godavari
District.
Between:
Botta Appa Rao, S/o.Katam Raju, Aged 55 years, R/o.Ambatipeta,
Bikkavolu Village, Bikkavolu Mandal, East Godavari
District.
...Petitioner/Defendant
AND
Bera Govindu, S/o.Veerraju, Aged 38 years, R/o.Ambatipeta,
Bikkavolu
Village, Bikkavolu Mandal, East Godavari District.
...Respondent/Plaintiff
Counsel for the above Petitioner: SRI S. SIVA BHAMI
REDDY
Counsel for the above Respondent: SRI RAJASEKHAR TULASI
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.No.3098 and 3099 of 2013
COMMON ORDER:
The present revisions are filed against the orders dated
02.07.2013 in I.A.No.249 and 248 of 2013 in O.S.No.786 of 2009
passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthi, East Godavari
District.
2. Petitioner is the defendant. The I.A.Nos.248 and 249 of
2013 were filed on 04.06.2013 to reopen and recall the evidence
of P.W.1 which was forfeited/closed by the trial Court
on
29.04.2013 as the counsel for the petitioner/defendant could not
attend the Court on that day due to a minor accident. It was
pleaded that the counsel for the defendant met with an accident
and was unable to move around and it was on that account, the
cross-examination of P.W.1 could not be conducted.
3. A counter affidavit was filed opposing the plea on the
ground that the case underwent a substantial number of
2
adjournments on various grounds. It was contended that the
present applications were only to drag on the proceedings.
The trial Court vide orders dated 02.07.2013 noted that the
4.
counsel for the defendant had taken several adjournments to
cross-examine P.W.1 and though P.W.1 cross-examined at the
first instance, the counsel for defendant took further time. In spite
of imposing costs, the counsel for the defendant failed to cross-
examine P.W.Tand right to cross-examine was forfeited due to
failure in complying with the conditional order. Hence, the present
revisions.
Heard Sri S.Siva Bhami Reedy, learned counsel for the
5.
petitioner and Sri Raja Sekhar Tulasi, learned counsel for the
respondent.
From the reading of the order of the trial Court, it is
6.
apparent that the case underwent number of adjournments for the
purpose of further cross-examination of P.W.1. However, as the
consequence for non-cross-examination of P.W.1 would amount
to admission by the defendant on aspects which PW.1 was not
3
cross examined, it would be in the interest of justice if one
opportunity is given to the defendant to cross-examine P.W.1.
7. Therefore, the order of the trial Court dated 02.07.2013 is
set aside, the petitioner shall conclude the cross-examination of
P.W.1 on the date fixed by the trial Court without further
adjournments, in default, the right to cross-examine P.W.1 will be
forfeited.
8. As P.W.1 had been attending the Court and submitting
himself for cross-examination from time to time, P.W.1 needs to
be compensated by the petitioner/defendant for the time spent.
This Court deems it appropriate to impose costs of Rs. 10,000/-
payable to P.W.1 as a condition precedent before cross-
examining P.W.1. The proof of payment shall be filed by the
petitioner along with a memo before the trial Court. In default of
payment of costs, the right to cross-examine P.W.T shall stand
forfeited.
- .a
4
4
9. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the trial Court dated
02.07.2013 is set aside and the civil revision petitions are allowed
subject to aforesaid. No order as to costs.
SD/- K SRINIVASA RAJU
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SB^TiON OFFICER
To
J
1. The Junior Civil Judge and Additional Judicial First
Class Magistrate,
Anaparthi, East Godavari District, (with records if
any)
2. One CC to Sri Siva Bhami Reddy S., Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri Rajasekhar Tulasi, Advocate [OPUC]
4. The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at
Amaravathi.
5. Three CD Copies
BSV
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED:30/08/2024
COMMON ORDER
CRP.Nos.3098 and 3099 of 2013
^ Ot OCT 202-. S
Current Section
^^ioesp»TCt<«2«^
ALLOWING THE C.R.Ps
WITHOUT COSTS