IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTYFIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVAN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5264 of 2010 Between: Nagam Prameela .. Petitioner AND Nagam Mohan Reddy .. Respondent ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.840 of 2010 in O.S.No.53 of 2009 dated 25-10-2010 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir. The Interlocutory Application was under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall the revision petitioner herein, who was examined as PW.1 for the purpose of further cross-examination alleging that the FIR in Crime No.63 of 2008 at the instance of the revision petitioner and the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.921 of 2008 filed in pursuance of the same apart from tax receipt dated 24-2-2010 issued by the Gram Panchayat have to be confronted to PW.1 for which purpose she had to be recalled. The revision petitioner resisted the claim contending that the certified copy of FIR was already marked as Ex.A.4 and the Charge Sheet as well as the tax receipt were documents arising after the suit and hence, irrelevant. The trial Court in the impugned order noted that the earlier cross-examination of the revision petitioner/PW.1 on 5-10-2010 was in view of the conditional order passed by the trial Court in pursuance of the directions of this Court in C.R.P.No.2672 of 2010 to dispose of the suit, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months. The trial Court, therefore, felt that the reason claimed by the respondent herein for recall of the revision petitioner/PW.1 was cogent and convincing and caused no prejudice to the revision petitioner. Relying on Cheerla @ Cuddapah Naganna and Koya Naganna (2008 (2) ALT 595), the trial Court, therefore, allowed the application subject to the revision petitioner being cross-examined on 28-10-2010. The revision petitioner contends herein that the documents now sought to be produced were also available at the time of her earlier cross-examination and the right of cross-examination was forfeited once earlier, due to which there is no question of her being recalled again for the purpose of cross-examination. No ground relevant to Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC was made out and hence, the revision petitioner desired the impugned order to be reversed. Though notice before admission of the revision petition was served on the respondent, none entered appearance on his behalf. Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is heard, who relied on three precedents on the aspect. The point for consideration is whether the request for recall of PW.1 for the purpose stated in the Interlocutory Application is just and legal? I n Nagumothu Sriharinath v. Nagumothu Vani[1], a learned Judge of this Court held that the counsel being not briefed properly at the time of earlier cross-examination of the witness cannot be a ground for recalling of a witness for further cross- examination and in Botsa Appala Narasayya v. Raghumanda Lakshmi and others[2], another learned Judge of this Court held that vague grounds mentioned in the affidavit in support of the application for recalling of a witness cannot be considered to be bonafide. The reason given in the affidavit in that case also was that proper instructions could not be given to the counsel on a particulate date. Even later, in Cheerla @ Cuddapah Naganna v. Koya Naganna[3], another learned Judge of this Court pointed out that the discretion exercised by the Court under Order 18 Rule 17 CPC should be on proper application of mind to facts and circumstances of the case and should be judicious. That was a case where the witness was sought to be recalled for further cross-examination to elicit certain aspects relating to a document and the request was negatived by the trial Court, which was upheld by the High Court. Taking the guidance from the three precedents relied on by Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and considering in depth the facts and circumstances involved in the present revision, it is clear that the request for recall of the revision petitioner does not appear to be justified in any manner. In the impugned order, the trial Court did not consider the specific plea of the revision petitioner in her counter affidavit on oath that the certified copy of FIR was already a part of her deposition having been marked as Ex.A.4, and therefore, the respondent herein could and should have cross-examined her on the contents of Ex.A.4 on the earlier occasion itself. The tax receipt said to have been issued by the Gram Panchayat for payment of tax on 24-2-2010 and the certified copy of the charge sheet in C.C.No.921 of 2008 sought to be admitted into evidence through the cross-examination of the revision petitioner were patently documents, which emanated subsequent to the suit, and therefore, probably could not have had any serious bearing on the determination of the questions in issue arising as on the date of the suit for injunction. The claim of the revision petitioner to the suit property and possession of the same by the date of the suit will have to be determined on the probabilities arising with reference to the suit property as on the date of the suit and not on the basis of any subsequent events. The documents emanating subsequent to the institution of the suit, therefore, could not have been a valid reason for recall of the revision petitioner herein. In the affidavit in support of the application, the respondent herein claimed that his counsel could not cross-examine the revision petitioner with reference to the said documents as the certified copies were not issued to him by then. But, it is not known from the affidavit as to whether any aspects on which the respondent herein or his counsel wanted to cross-examine her with reference to such documents have been suggested to her and not accepted by her, so as to compel probablisation of such aspects only after and through the admission of such documents. The revision petitioner claimed that the tax receipt and the certified copies of charge sheet and FIR were also available to the respondent even by the time of her earlier cross-examination and that the right of cross-examination was forfeited and there could not have been any repeated exercise of such type of recalling of the witness from time to time on such grounds. The claims appeared to be justified and the judicial discretion exercised by the trial Court to recall PW.1 does not appear to be in accordance with the accepted principles in this regard or to be justified by the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the impugned order has to be reversed. In the result, the order dated 25-10-2010 in I.A.No.840 of 2010 in O.S.No.53 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge Bhongir, is set aside and the said petition is dismissed without costs. However, this order will not preclude the respondent herein from producing the documents in question before the Court, admitting them in evidence and proving their contents in accordance with law otherwise. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21-01-2011 Ksn [1] 1997 (5) ALD 237 [2] 2004 (4) ALD (NOC) 250 [3] 2008 (1) ALD 806