THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2319 & 2326 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Dt:11-08-2010 Between : P. Vittal Reddy .. petitioner And K. Sharath Babu & others .. Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Sri G. Anjappa Counsel for respondents : Sri M. Vijayakumar Goud < GIST >HEAD NOTE: ? CASES REFERRED : THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.2319 & 2326 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These two revisions arise out of a common order passed by the Court of Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Rajendranagar, in I.A.Nos.1264 and 1265 of 2009 in O.S.No.535 of 2008. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. The 1st respondent filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Petitioner figured as defendant No.6. It appears that the suit is mainly contested by the petitioner herein. The trial of the suit commenced, and the evidence on behalf of the 1st respondent was concluded. The petitioner filed an affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. However, on a date stipulated for his cross- examination, it appears that his advocate did not attend the Court. The trial Court treated that the chief-examination on his part is over, and subjected the petitioner herein for cross-examination, as DW-1. In the process, some of the documents, which were filed in the written- statement, were not marked through him. It appears some selective documents, filed along with the written-statement, were marked in ‘A’ series, at the instance of the counsel for the 1st respondent. Petitioner filed I.A.No.895 of 2009 to recall him, so that he can bring certain documents, filed along with the written-statement; on record. However, the I.A. was allowed on 23-10-2009, only to the extent of enabling him to speak about the documents, that were already filed, and marked through PW-1. C.R.P.No.2319 of 2010 arises out of it. Having noticed the limited scope of I.A.No.895 of 2009, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1264 of 2009, with a prayer to reopen his evidence, to enable him to mark the documents, and I.A.No.1265 of 2009, to recall him. Through a common order dated 22-10-2010, the trial Court dismissed the applications, by observing that the petitioner was not diligent at the relevant point of time. CRP 2326 of 2010 is filed against it. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the 1st respondent. On account of the recent amendment to the C.P.C., an important step in the trial of the proceedings, viz., chief-examination of a witness, was reduced to an empty formality. The prevailing practice is that, filing of a copy of plaint in an affidavit form, is treated as chief-examination. Uncertainty prevailed as to the manner in which, documents must be filed in the course of chief- examination. In certain cases, exhibit marks were mentioned in the affidavits, filed in lieu of chief-examination itself, and hardly there used to be an occasion for the Courts to verify the admissibility or otherwise of the documents. High Courts intervened and held that though an affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination is filed, the documents must be brought on record, only when the witness is physically present in the Court, and after verification of the admissibility and relevance of each and every document. This principle does not appear to have percolated to the Courts, well. In the instant case, the petitioner filed his affidavit, in lieu of chief-examination, and wanted the documents, filed by him along with the written-statement, to be brought on record, in continuation of the chief-examination, in the Court. It may be a fact that the advocate of the petitioner was not present in the Court, on the stipulated date. If the Court was of the view that there was no justification for such absence, it ought to have closed the evidence of the petitioner, as DW- 1. If there existed any justification, the matter ought to have been adjourned. However, the Court has chosen to subject the petitioner for cross-examination, in the absence of his counsel, and without verifying the steps, that were required to be taken by the witness about the documents, filed on his behalf. This naturally led to a precarious situation, where the counsel for the plaintiff in the suit has virtually changed the roles, in the context of marking documents. It is stated that majority of the documents, filed by the petitioner herein along with the written-statement, were marked through PW-1, and some of them were left unmarked. The Court remained as a silent spectator for all these anomalies. At least, when an application is filed by the petitioner herein, the trial Court ought to have permitted the various anomalies, that have crept into the matter, to be rectified. Confining the recalling of DW-1 only to the extent of referring to the documents, that were wrongly marked through PW-1, and dismissal of the applications for recalling of DW-1, cannot be sustained in law. This is one case, where the petitioner was made to suffer for the wrong step taken by the trial Court, in directing that DW-1 be cross-examined, even before his chief- examination was formally concluded. The casual manner in which the matter was dealt with, is evident from the fact that the petitioner, who is defendant No.6, and is examined as DW-1 was referred to in the certified copy of the order, as DW-6. This Court hopes that the trial Court would hereafter evince proper interest and conduct the proceedings with required amount of care and caution. The C.R.Ps are accordingly allowed, and the orders under revision are set aside. I.A.No.1264 and 1265 of 2009 are allowed and the evidence of DW-1 shall be re-opened, and he shall be recalled for the purpose of marking the documents and taking other steps. I.A.No.895 of 2009 is treated as superfluous, and it shall stand closed. There shall be no order as costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.11-08-2010. Note: Mark L.R copies. (B/O) KO