IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) TUESDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.18631 of 2009 BETWEEN: Abdul Azeez Ansari … APPELLANT(S) And The II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Guntur and another … RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N. RAVI SHANKAR WRIT PETITION No.18631 of 2009 ORDER: (Per HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY) In this writ petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner who is defendant in a Suit filed for recovery of money based on a pronote i.e. O.S. No.135 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Fast Track Court, Guntur (first respondent herein and hereinafter for short referred to as ‘Court below’) seeks to issue a Writ in the nature of Prohibition terminating the proceedings in the said Suit on the ground that the first respondent herein is acting in excess of jurisdiction and continuation of proceedings there violates the principles of natural justice and fundamental rights. 2. The details of the Suit are not necessary. The facts in brief to the extent necessary for the disposal of this writ petition are these. In the Suit the petitioner herein has filed I.A.No.125 of 2007 with a prayer to look into the affidavit and pass necessary orders. His case is that on 03.04.2007 the Suit was posted for his (defendant’s) evidence on costs and his counsel paid costs to the counsel for the plaintiff in the Court below and filed memo to that effect and after receiving the same the Court below closed the evidence of the plaintiff (second respondent herein and hereinafter referred to as ‘plaintiff’) and posted the matter to 05.04.2007 for arguments. His grievance is that though his counsel in the Court below represented many a times that the plaintiff failed to serve a copy of the deposition of P.W1 along with copies of the documents marked i.e. Exs.A1 to A4 the same were not served and therefore he could not cross-examine P.W1. His further grievance is that though as per the order dated 15.09.2006 in Crl.M.P.No.2206 of 2006 this Court permitted the plaintiff to take return of a document Ex.P2 marked in C.C.No.92 of 2002 on the file of the VII Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur subject to substitution of the same with a certified copy, he (plaintiff) did not take return of the same and file the same before the Court below. It may then be noted that in the Court below the petitioner also filed I.A.No.22 of 2007 for raising the attachment of the immovable properties and the same is coming up for counter of the plaintiff since 18.01.2007. His contention is that without serving a copy of the deposition affidavit filed by the plaintiff, without serving the document and without going through the order of this Court it is impossible for him to cross-examine P.W1. In the Court below the plaintiff filed counter denying the allegations made against him stating that the order of this Court passed in Crl.M.P.No.2206 of 2006 need not be filed into Court as the petitioner was duly served with the same and a copy of the chief affidavit of P.W1 was served on his counsel and it is alleged that from the very beginning the petitioner has been indulging in delay tactics in prolonging the suit as long as possible and contended that the IA is not maintainable as the same is filed without praying for appropriate relief. The Court below by order dated 08.06.2009 dismissed the said petition considering the events that took place from the date of filing of the affidavit in lieu of chief-examination by P.W1 i.e. 17.10.2005 till 03.01.2007 on which date the cross-examination of P.W1 was recorded as ‘Nil’ and also the subsequent events took place viz., the filing of chief affidavits of P.Ws.2 and 3 on 18.01.2007, the petitioner filing I.A.No.22 of 2007 under Order XXVIII Rule 8 read with Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same being adjourned from time to time, the Court allowing an application filed by the petitioner seeking time under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and dismissing another similar application on 28.02.2007 when P.Ws.2 and 3 were present and their cross- examination was recorded as ‘Nil’, the matter being posted to 08.03.2007 for defendant’s evidence and later being adjourned from time to time upto 03.04.2007 when the defendant’s evidence was closed. The Court below dismissed the said application observing that the petitioner never pleaded for reopening the evidence of the plaintiff for cross-examination of P.Ws.1 to 3 and that the present application is filed only after closure of his (defendant’s) evidence and that the petitioner could not make it clear as to what the relief expected by him from the Court in the said application. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the second respondent herein. 4. According to Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure the Courts shall have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. A Writ of Prohibition will lie only in a case where the civil Court is exercising the jurisdiction which is not vested in it by law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision given in EAST INDIA COMMRL. CO. vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS[1] held that a writ of prohibition is an order directed to an inferior Tribunal forbidding it from continuing with a proceeding therein on the ground that the proceeding is without or in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to the laws of the land, statutory or otherwise. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the decision given in EAST INDIA COMMRL. CO.’s case (1 supra) we are of the opinion that a writ of prohibition for terminating the proceedings in the Suit O.S.No.135 of 2002 on the file of the Court below is not maintainable and the appropriate remedy for the petitioner against the dismissal of his application is to file a revision to this Court under appropriate provision of law if he is so advised. 6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. 1st March 2011 CVRK [1] AIR 1962 SC 1893