IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5757 of 2009 Between: Kapolla Basvaiah and another .. Petitioners AND Ande Narsamma .. Respondent ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 17-11-2009 in I.A.No.554 of 2009 in O.S.No.5 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Gajwel, dismissing the application by the defendants for recalling PW.1 for further cross-examination on the additional issues. The additional issues framed by the Court below are, firstly, about sufficiency of the court fee paid in respect of the relief of mandatory injunction and secondly, in respect of the amendment sought for being barred by Order-II Rule-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also limitation. The defendants/revision petitioners contended that they required to cross-examine PW.1 on the circumstances relevant to the additional issues, which were framed after the arguments of both the parties were heard by the Court below after conclusion of recording of the evidence originally. The plaintiff resisted the request of the defendants stating that the evidence on record is sufficient to decide all the issues and it was on the necessity to pay separate court fee on the two reliefs sought for in the plaint being discovered during the course of arguments that the plaintiff sought for amendment of the plaint and deposited the deficit court fee. The plaintiff, therefore, contended that the defendants cannot recall PW.1 for any purpose concerned with the additional issues. The burden of proof with regard to the additional issues lies on him. He claimed the request to be beyond the scope of Order-XVIII Rule-17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court in the impugned order noted that originally the evidence of both parties was closed and even the arguments were heard. The trial Court also noted that only on the Court noticing that no court fee was paid on the relief of mandatory injunction that the plaintiff paid the deficit court fee and amended the plaint in reply to which additional written statement was filed by the defendants. The trial Court found that the plaintiff stated that he had no further evidence on the additional issues framed and while the defendants are at liberty to examine their own witnesses after the framing of additional issues, there is no point in recalling PW.1 for further cross-examination on these two additional issues, which are purely legal and not factual and the trial Court also referred to the decision of the Delhi High Court in this regard and consequently, dismissed the petition without costs. The defendants seek to challenge the said order herein contending that it was a failure to exercise its jurisdiction by the trial Court, when the additional issues were framed, to give an opportunity for adducing further evidence to both parties. The revision petitioners contended that the trial Court ought to have given an opportunity to recall PW.1. Sri K. Govind, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent- plaintiff are heard. The point for consideration is whether the defendants/revision petitioners should be permitted to recall PW.1 for further cross-examination on the additional issues? The suit was for a permanent injunction and a mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff against both the defendants and the same was being tried on contest. The evidence for both parties was originally recorded and when the matter was at the stage of arguments and the arguments were heard, the trial Court appeared to have passed an order on 06-02-2009 noting that no court fee was paid on the relief of perpetual injunction though court fee was paid on the relief of mandatory injunction and therefore, with reference to the mandatory provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1956 and the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff was directed to amend the value of the suit in respect of the two reliefs and to pay additional court fee regarding the relief of permanent injunction. It was in consequence that the plaintiff applied for amendment of the plaint and paid the additional court fee, which was replied by the defendants by their additional written statement. While the matter stood at that stage for further evidence for the parties after the trial Court framed the additional issues, the defendants sought for recalling of PW.1 for further cross-examination on the additional issues. The affidavit in support of the application does not elaborate as to what questions still further remain to be confronted to PW.1 after his cross-examination was completed on all factual aspects earlier and when the two additional issues raise purely questions of law about sufficiency of the court fee and the bar of limitation for the amended portion of the plaint and the bar under Order-II Rule-2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the same amendment. As the trial Court appeared to be right in concluding that these two legal issues do not call for recalling of PW.1 for any further cross-examination and as the defendants did not come forward with showing any other aspects on which the recalling of PW.1 for further cross-examination is necessary, the order of the trial Court does not appear to be suffering from any unreasonableness or impropriety to call for any interference in exercise of the restricted revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 19-03-2010 Ksn