THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.540 of 2010 23.3.2010 Between: B.Surya Prakasa Rao, S/o.Mangayya …Petitioner and Dammalapati Sesha Rao (died) And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.540 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is plaintiff in O.S.No.242 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem. He filed the suit for cancellation of two sale deeds executed by defendants 3 to 7 in favour of defendants 1 and 2. Be it noted that third defendant is wife and defendants 4 to 7 are his children. During the pendency of the suit, first defendant died and his son has been brought on record das defendant No.13. Be it also noted that second defendant is none other than wife of defendant No.13. The suit is at the stage of trial (other side counsel informs that it is at the arguments stage). During the trial, defendant No.13 gave evidence as D.W.1. After completion of his evidence, plaintiff filed I.A.No.1200 of 2009 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to recall D.W.1 to confront him with his deposition in O.S.No.128 of 1984. The Court below dismissed the same observing that when a person is living, his deposition in earlier proceedings cannot be marked and that witness cannot be recalled to fill up the lacunae. This Court heard the counsel for petitioner and the counsel for respondents. This Court also considered Sections 32 and 155 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The observation that the deposition of a living person cannot be marked in evidence is belied by reference to Section 155(3) and illustration (a) thereunder. To impeach the evidence of any witness, he can be confronted with former statements. Such statements might have been made solemnly before the Court of law in a deposition or otherwise. Therefore the law does not prohibit confronting of a witness with his/her statement before a Court of law. In that view of the matter, the impugned order suffers from error. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and I.A.No.1200 of 2009 is allowed. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, is directed to recall D.W.1 for further cross-examination by the plaintiff. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) March 23, 2010. YS