THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.6064 OF 2010 DATED: 31.12.2010 BETWEEN: Amirbhai Jamalbhai and another .. Petitioners And A/Srivachalam .. Respondent THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.6064 OF 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri G.Krishna MurthY, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. This revision petition is filed to set aside the order dated 29.11.2010 passed by the XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.No.499 of 2010 in O.S.No.634 of 2010. The impugned order was passed in relation to an application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall DW1 for further cross examination for the purpose of confronting DW1 with certain documents containing facts which are contrary to his evidence in the present suit. The petition was opposed on the ground that the petition does not contain any details and particulars of the documents with which the plaintiff wants to confront DW1. The learned trial court upon considering the contentions urged allowed the petition permitting further cross-examination of DW1 on the reasoning that opportunity has to be afforded to the petitioner/plaintiff to cross examine DW1 for the purpose of confronting DW1 with the document where there are allegedly admissions which are contrary to the evidence of DW1. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners placed reliance on T.HARIBHUSHANA AND ANOTHER v T.VENKAT RAO(SINCE DECEASED BY L.RS.) AND OTHERS[1], and MACHA GANGADHAR v MACHA GANGARAM[2] In the said judgments, it has been laid down that unless there are convincing reasons for recalling the witness and that the particulars of the documents with which the cross- examination is proposed to be conducted, and the details of the documents are not filed, the Court is justified in dismissing the petition to recall the witness for further examination, and the ground that the petitioner could not instruct his counsel properly on the date of examination is a vague ground and the application is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the instant case also the Court below did not find any convincing reasons for recalling the witness, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. In the affidavit, it is clearly mentioned that the plaintiff proposed to cross examine the witness with reference to certain documents where there are some admissions contrary to the case of defendant. The learned trial Court took into consideration that DW1 denied in his cross examination that he received the termination notice but he admitted the same in another suit and the defendant wants to confront those documents to DW1 and the learned trial Court after exercising its judicial discretion afforded opportunity to the plaintiff to further cross examine DW1. In exercise of powers of revision, this Court is not supposed to interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court, which it is not improper. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________ Date: 31.12.2010 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.6064 OF 2010 DATED: 31.12.2010 [1] AIR 2004 AP 83 [2] AIR 2005 AP 178