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.5320 of 2009 Between: Mohd. Younusuddin .. Petitioner/Plaintiff AND Smt. Reka Sangeeta Laxmi .. Respondent/Defendant Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated 18-09-2009 in I.A. No.749 of 2009 in O.S. No.12 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 the respondent, the Court made the following: ORDER: The revision is directed against the order in I.A. No.749 of 2009 in O.S. No.12 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Siddipet, dated 18-09-2009. The petition was filed by the defendant requesting to recall P.W.2 for further cross-examination, which request was resisted by the plaintiff claiming that P.W.2 was already cross-examined at length by the counsel for the defendant and that no reasons were assigned for not putting any questions now claimed to be missing and that any gaps and defects cannot be filled up by recalling P.W.2. The trial Court passed the impugned order after perusing the record observing that P.W.2 was already cross-examined at length and no reason was specified as to why the alleged missing questions were not put to the witness earlier. The trial Court also observed that the law prescribes that the parties cannot be allowed to fill the gaps and defects and opining that there was no sufficient reason to recall P.W.2, the trial Court dismissed the petition. The defendant filed this revision contending that the order on technicalities is not in the interests of justice and fair play and the defendant should have been given every opportunity to cross- examine on the relevant aspects. Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the respondent are heard and during the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner filed a list of questions sought to be put to P.W.2 on his being recalled. The point for consideration is whether P.W.2 should be permitted to be recalled ? Point: The copy of evidence of P.W.2 shows that P.W.2 was not confronted with at least some questions, which are now sought to be confronted to him on his being recalled and as to how P.W.2 came to give evidence and as to who prepared the affidavit of P.W.2 for his examination in chief and his knowledge about any layout, etc., cannot be considered to be irrelevant for determination of the questions in controversy between the parties. There might be some laches on the part of the defendant in not putting such questions to P.W.2 when he was originally examined, but for that reason, he need not be deprived of an opportunity of recalling P.W.2 to be questioned on these aspects. Rules of procedure are intended to be handmaids of justice and the parties should be given every reasonable opportunity to place their version in full before the Court for a decision on merits and any inconvenience caused to the Court and the opposite side by the delay or inaction on the part of the defendant can be directed to be compensated by appropriate terms. Sri G. Anandam, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that P.W.2 is an independent witness and it will be difficult for the plaintiff to trace his present availability and secure his presence before the Court and for the fault of the defendant, he should not suffer. The request is but reasonable and the defendant, who wants to recall P.W.2, can and has to be directed to take steps to secure his presence before the Court and cross- examine him, if the defendant succeeds in securing his presence before the Court and if the defendant fails, the evidence of P.W.2 already recorded cannot be eschewed from consideration, as the plaintiff cannot be considered to be at fault for not completely cross-examining P.W.2. Therefore, the impugned order in I.A. No.749 of 2009 in O.S. No.12 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet, dated 18-09-2009 is set aside and the said petition will be allowed on deposit of Rs.300/- (Rupees three hundred only) by the defendant to the credit of the Mandal Legal Services Committee, Siddipet within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the trial Court and in default, the petition shall stand dismissed. If the petition is allowed, P.W.2 shall be recalled for cross-examination by the defendant and the defendant shall take necessary steps to secure the presence of P.W.2 before the Court for the said purpose. In the event of failure of the defendant to secure the presence of P.W.2 before the Court, still the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be eschewed from evidence and has to be considered on merits. The civil revision petition is ordered accordingly. No costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-04-2010 Svv