THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3604 of 2011 Date: 23.09.2011 Between: M/s.Natraj Enterprises, Vijayawada and others …. Petitioners And M/s.Janachaitanya Housing Limited, Guntur and others …. Respondents The Court made the following ORDER: ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2011 passed by VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Vijayawada in dismissing I.A.No.129 of 2011 in O.S.No.10 of 2001 filed by the petitioners herein to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross-examination. Admittedly, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.28,87,265.42 ps with a charge on the plaint schedule property, and with subsequent interest from the date of the suit till the date of the decree @ 12% per annum and thereafter till realization @6% per annum on Rs.20,00,000/-. It is stated that the plaintiff company entered into an oral agreement, wherein the first defendant/first respondent herein, represented by the second respondent, agreed to sell the plaint schedule property and also undertook to obtain Income Tax Clearance Certificate, Urban Land Ceiling Permission, clearance of all encumbrances with regard to the plaint schedule property, and to get the unauthorized occupiers in the plaint schedule property evicted. On compliance of the said requirements, the plaintiff agreed to pay full sale consideration and get the sale deed executed and registered by the first defendant. In consequence of the oral agreement, the plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- through cheques issued on different dates, for which, the first defendant issued three receipts dated 24.12.1996, 04.10.1997 and 25.11.1997. It is also stated that the plaintiff learnt that upon a debt due from defendants 2 and 3 and others, M/s. Syndicate Bank, Buckingham Pet Branch, Vijayawada filed a suit in O.S.No.411 of 1993 on the file of II Additional Sub-Judge Court, Vijayawada and obtained an order of attachment restraining them from alienating the plaint schedule property and the said attachment is still pending. It is also stated that to show the bona fides and readiness and willingness to get the sale deed executed and registered, the plaintiff deposited an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- in Syndicate Bank to the credit of its name from 04.04.1998 to 16.03.1999. Further, in the receipt dated 25.11.1997 signed by the first defendant firm represented by the second defendant and also signed by the third defendant, they acknowledged the receipt of total advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. The plaintiff also undertook to complete the sale transaction by 28.02.1998. In spite of repeated demands, the defendants failed to perform their part of obligations. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 contested the suit by filing a written statement denying the plaint averments and stating that the suit is liable to be dismissed for misjoinder of parties. After P.Ws.1 and 2 were sufficiently cross examined, the petitioners herein, who are defendants 1, 2, 3, 9 and 10 filed the above Interlocutory Application to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross examination stating that no such terms were settled between the parties at the time of the alleged oral transaction for obtaining Income Tax Clearance Certificate, Urban Land Ceiling Permission etc., and that the term agreed between the parties is that the plaintiff shall arrange the amount due, which was settled under one time settlement scheme by 28.02.1998, to Syndicate Bank. They denied the claim of the plaintiff that the second defendant issued three receipts in 1996- 97. It is further stated that on the said aspects there was no cross- examination by their earlier counsel while cross examining P.Ws.1 and 2 and that after changing the advocate, the present advocate advised them to file the above Interlocutory Application to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 for the purpose of cross examination. The plaintiff filed counter affidavit opposing the petition and stating that 9th defendant has not filed any separate written statement and she adopted the written statement of the third defendant; that the previous counsel of the defendants elaborately cross examined P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding the receipts and that P.W.1 resigned his job about two years back and his address was not known to them and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Interlocutory Application. The learned trial Court, after going through the entire evidence of P.W.1, held that P.W.1 was sufficiently cross examined with regard to the permission of Urban Land Ceiling Authority, Encumbrance Certificate, receipts and also eviction of the encroachers; that in the cross-examination of P.W.1, a suggestion was made to him that there is no specified period to get the permission of Urban Land Ceiling Authority and Encumbrance Certificate and also to evict the encroachers over the suit schedule property; that the cross examination of P.W.1 reads that on four occasions, he had paid the amounts and the first payment was on 04.12.1996; second payment was in March, 1997; third payment was in October, 1997; fourth payment was in November, 1997 and the fifth payment was three months thereafter and he had not issued any notice to the defendants as they were canceling the sale agreement as the defendants did not obtain the permission of Urban Land Ceiling Authority, which clearly goes to show that a suggestion was made with regard to the payment of the amounts on various dates. Therefore, recalling P.Ws.1 and 2 for further cross-examination is nothing but protracting the matter. In view of the same, the impugned order passed by the lower Court does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 23.09.2011 va