IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.759 of 2010 Between: Bollam Bala Krishna ... PETITIONER a n d Parala Sharada @ Mangadudla Sarada … RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 20-01-2010 passed in I.A.No.1016 of 2009 in O.P.No.80 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nalgonda, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The petitioner filed O.P.No.80 of 2005 for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. Some proceedings went on between the parties in the Criminal Court and ultimately C.C.No.757 of 2005, wherein the petitioner has been arrayed as one of the accused, ended in acquittal. 3. RW-1 has been recalled for the purpose of marking her deposition in C.C.No.757 of 2005. But she denied of her being examined as witness in the Criminal Case. Thereupon, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1016 of 2009 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for getting himself re-called to mark certified copy of the deposition of PW-1 in C.C.No.757 of 2005. It is stated by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.1016/2009 that his recalling for further chief-examination has become eminent in view of the denial of the respondent on her being examined as PW-1 in C.C.No.757 of 2005. 4. For better appreciation, I may refer paragraph No.4 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, which reads as hereunder: “I further submit that; as I am intending to mark deposition of respondent herein, in her cross examination as RW-1 in the present O.P., I gave suggestions with regard to above facts, but she did not admit that she deposed as PW-1 in C.C.No.757/07, and she also denied her signatures on the deposition of PW-1. In these circumstances, I am intending to mark the C.C. of deposition of Respondent/RW-1 herein and also judgment dated 26-03- 2007 in C.C.No.757/2007 before this Court on my behalf through me (PW-1) as which is very important material piece of evidence to prove my case. For this purpose, it is just and necessary to re-call me (PW-1) enabling me to mark those documents.” 5. The respondent filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner herein earlier filed similar application and it ended in dismissal and, therefore, the present application is hit by the principle of resjudicata. 6. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application on the ground that the similar application ended in dismissal earlier, by an order dated 20-01-2010. Paragraph No.8 of the impugned order needs to be noted here and it reads thus: “On perusal of the record the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.639/08 to recall PW-1 for the purpose of marking the deposition of the respondent herein made in CC No.757/05. That the said petition was allowed and accordingly the petitioner was recalled. But during the course of evidence he was not permitted to mark the deposition of the respondent herein on the ground that the same was not confronted to her and, hence, his further evidence was closed. Admittedly, the petitioner herein did not file any revision or appeal against the said order, dated 18.09.2008, but subsequently, the petitioner herein I.A.No.804/08 and the same was dismissed. Similarly, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.865/09 for recalling the respondent for the same purpose of marking her deposition and the said I.A. was allowed. In this case both the petitioner and the respondent filed revisions against the orders in I.A.No.804/08 and IA 865/08 vide CRP Nos.2369/09 and 236/09 respectively. The Hon’ble High Court allowed CRP 2369/09 permitting to recall RW-1 the respondent herein and CRP 236/09 was also allowed, but the order in IA 865/08 was dismissed, in which the court ordered to recall RW-1. However, the RW-1 was recalled and during her evidence she denied of her deposition. Now the present petition is to recall PW-1. As already pointed out the PW-1 was recalled as per orders in IA No.639/08 but he was not allowed to mark the deposition of the RW-1. The said order has become final, and, therefore, the present petition filed for the same purpose cannot be allowed.” 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition is necessitated since the respondent has denied of her giving any evidence in C.C.No.757 of 2007. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner earlier filed application seeking the very same relief, which ended in dismissal and, therefore, the present application cannot be entertained and the order passed by the trial Court in rejecting the application is legal and proper, and the same is not required to be interfere with exercising the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is no doubt that the petition filed by the petitioner on earlier occasion ended in dismissal. When the application was dismissed, RW-1 was not recalled. Now PW-1 was recalled. When the certified copy of deposition was confronted with her, she denied of giving any evidence before the Criminal Court. It necessitated the petitioner to get himself recalled for marking the certified copy of deposition of the respondent. There is no other way to the petitioner for marking deposition of RW-1 in C.C.No.757/2007 except recalling himself for further chief examination. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 20-01-2010 passed in I.A.No.1016 of 2009. Consequently, I.A.No.1016 of 2009 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY, J July 21, 2010. PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.759 of 2010 July 21, 2010