IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE THIRTEITH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1772 of 2010 Between: N.Deepthi … Petitioner And N.Venkataramana Murthy … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1772 OF 2010 ORDER:- Petitioner/respondent/wife filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to revise the order of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada dated 12.03.2010 passed in I.A.No.172 of 2010 in O.P.No.100 of 2008 filed to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. The respondent/petitioner/husband filed the above O.P. for annulment of the marriage on the ground that the marriage between the parties has not been consummated and on the ground of suppression of material facts under Section 12 (1) (a) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in which the petitioner/defendant filed counter, but no plea as such was taken by her that she got pregnancy and it was aborted at the instance of her husband. To substantiate the plea for annulment of the marriage when the respondent examined himself as P.W.1, he was cross-examined twice at length and on both times, the respondent/husband who is working in U.S.A. attended the Court for the purpose of cross-examination. After the evidence of her husband is completed, petitioner examined six witnesses on her side and after examining six witnesses, she filed the above I.A. for recalling P.W.1 for further cross-examination, to which the respondent filed a counter opposing the petition contending that he recently visited India on 19.01.2010 and also on 21.01.2010 and returned to U.S.A. on 24.01.2010 and his company will not grant leave and he has to spend nearly Rs.1,50,000/- and the above application is filed only to harass him. The petitioner in the present petition stated that certain important questions were not put to P.W.1 with regard to the consummation of marriage, abortion and other important aspects. Therefore, it is necessary to recall P.W.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination. It is now fairly well settled that oral evidence would be worthless and would be of no value even if it could be considered in spite of the serious infirmity in the whole case of the defendant on the point there being complete absence of pleadings and issues {See Central Bank of India Ltd. V. Hari Prasad Jalan (AIR 1972 Supreme Court 1274 )}" When there is no plea with regard to the petitioner getting pregnancy and it was aborted at the instance of her husband, recalling the husband for the purpose of cross-examination on that aspect, does not arise. The discretion exercised by the trial Court in dismissing I.A., does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 30th April 2010 Lmv