IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4704 OF 2008 And CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5009 OF 2008 Between: A.Ramanjaneyulu ..... PETITIONER AND D.Balaji and another .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4704 OF 2008 And CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5009 OF 2008 COMMON O R D E R : These two revision petitions arising out of the proceedings in O.S.No.228 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kalyandurg are heard together and decided by this common order. The revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the suit is filed for recovery of money allegedly due from the defendants/respondents herein under Ex.A-1 promissory note. It is the case of the plaintiff/revision petitioner that Ex.A-1 promissory note was executed by the 1st defendant and his late father by name Dani Nagappa. Since even before filing the suit, Dani Nagappa died, his wife was added as the 2nd defendant to the suit. The defendants contested the suit claim and during the trial, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW.1 and the scribe of the promissory note gave evidence as PW.2. Thereafter, the 1st defendant was examined as DW.1 and while the matter was coming up for further evidence of the defendants, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.178 of 2008 and I.A.No.179 of 2008 with a prayer to re-open the evidence of the plaintiff and to recall PW.2 to give further evidence. In the affidavit filed in support of the said applications it is pleaded that, whereas Ex.A- 1 promissory note clearly shows that it was executed by both DW.1 and his father, PW.2 had wrongly deposed in chief that EX.A-1 was executed by DW.1 alone and that the 1st defendant/DW.1 had come along with his father. While claiming that PW.2 had deposed so on account of confusion, the plaintiff sought to reopen the evidence and to recall PW.2 for further evidence. The said application was opposed by the defendants and the Court below, after hearing both the parties by a common order dated 09.06.2008 dismissed both the applications. Aggrieved by the same, these two revision petitions are filed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. Despite notice, the respondents did not choose to appear. A copy of the Ex.A-1 promissory note has been placed before this Court, which shows the alleged signature of the 1st defendant’s father Dani Nagappa on the adhesive stamp affixed on it. The document contained the 1st defendant’s signature also below the signature of the Dani Nagappa, however it was not on the adhesive stamp affixed on the document. PW.2-scribe in his chief examination stated that Ex.A-1 was executed by Dani Nagappa- the father of DW.1 alone. The same version was reiterated even in his cross examination. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Court below did not accept the plea of the plaintiff that PW.2 was confused while giving evidence and accordingly, refused to re-open the evidence and to recall PW.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention that the Court below ought to have re-opened the evidence and ought to have recalled PW.2, relied upon the decisions in Om Prakash v. Sarupa and others[1] and Suresh Kumar v. Baldev Raj[2]. On a careful consideration of the above said decisions, I am of the opinion that the ratio laid down in both the decisions is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The law is well settled that the discretion conferred by the Court under Order 18 Rule 17 and 17-A of Civil Procedure Code is discretionary and it has to be exercised judicially basing on the facts and circumstances of the particular case. The order under revision shows that the Court below on appreciation of the evidence already on record and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case thought it fit that it was not necessary to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and to recall PW.2. Such discretion exercised by the Court below on application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case, warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. _____________ Date: 18.03.2010 G. ROHINI, J. Ivd [1] AIR 1981 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 157 [2] AIR 1984 DELHI 439