IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.5322 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Younusuddin .. Petitioner/plaintiff AND Md. Khajamoinuddin and others .. Respondents/defendants Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 06-10-2009 in I.A. No.753 of 2009 in O.S. No.73 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D. Madhava Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri G. Anandam, Advocate for contesting respondents, the Court made the following: ORDER: The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet in I.A. No.753 of 2009 in O.S. No.73 of 2005, dated 06-10-2009. The petition was filed by the plaintiff to recall D.W.2 for further cross-examination in the suit for partition. The request was opposed contending that the plaintiff’s counsel took many adjournments for cross-examining the witnesses and after elaborate cross-examination done earlier, there was no need to recall the witness again. The trial Court passed the impugned order noting that the alleged reason for recalling D.W.2 was not a sufficient cause for such recall and if such a practice is encouraged, matters will be dragged on for years. Therefore, the trial Court felt that the parties should not be allowed to recall witnesses without sufficient cause and she is not inclined to allow the petition. The dismissal of the petition for that reason made the plaintiff approach this Court with this revision claiming that a reasonable opportunity should have been given to the plaintiff to put material questions in the interests of justice. Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the contesting respondents are heard at length and during the course of hearing, Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner filed the proposed questions which are sought to be confronted to the witness, if he is permitted to be recalled. The point for consideration is whether D.W.2 be permitted to be recalled ? Point: Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers judicial discretion on the Court to recall any witness at any stage to put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. The said judicial discretion has been held to be liable to be exercised liberally to advance the cause of substantial justice and not to be denied on technicalities. The impugned order in question is more based on the disinclination of the Presiding Officer of the Court to allow such recall than on merits and there appears to be no factual foundation for the perception of the trial Court that any encouragement of such practice will lead to the matters being dragged on for years. The petition ought not to have been decided on such generalities or perceptions of the Presiding Officer and should have been decided on its own merits. The questions now placed before this Court cannot be considered to be irrelevant to the issues in controversy between the parties and at least some of them do not form part of the earlier evidence of D.W.2 in chief and cross-examinations. Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice and the parties should be given every reasonable opportunity to have their version fully placed before the Court, more so in matters involving valuable rights of the parties to immovable properties. Under the circumstances, judicial discretion of the Court should be exercised in favour of the request and any inconvenience caused to the Court and the opposite side by the delay should be answered by imposing appropriate terms. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Siddipet in I.A. No.753 of 2009 in O.S. No.73 of 2005, dated 06-10-2009 is set aside and I.A. No.753 of 2009 in O.S. No.73 of 2005 will be allowed on deposit of Rs.300/-(Rupees three hundred only) by the plaintiff to the credit of the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Siddipet within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in default, the petition shall stand dismissed. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-04-2010 Svv