THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5330 of 2009 (Dated : 25-02-2011) Between; Medam Ramesh S/o Raghavaiah Vinukonda Town, Guntur District …Petitioner A n d Anand Lahoti Mahaboobnagar District …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5330 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 12.10.2009 passed in I.A.No.212 of 2009 in O.S.No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, Mahabubnagar District, whereby and whereunder, the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner-defendant to reopen the case and to recall the petitioner/Dw.1 for the purpose of re-examination. 2. Background facts, in a nut shell, leading to filing of this revision by the defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2008 are:- The respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.3 of 2008. He filed the suit against the petitioner-defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,22,960/- The petitioner-defendant filed written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiff. Both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings. The petitioner-defendant got himself examined as Dw.1. In the cross examination, it is elicited from Dw.1 that the transaction in Bill Nos.444, 464, 469 and 471 related to the business of the plaintiff. The petitioner-defendant filed I.A.No.212 of 2009 to recall Dw.1 for the purpose of re-examination to clarify that bill No.471 is not admitted by him and that althrough he has been disputing the said bill. 3. The plaintiff filed counter resisting the application. 4. The learned Senior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 12.10.2008. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder :- “5. The apt provision is Order 18 R.17. No doubt, the petitioner has relied upon inherent jurisdiction section 151 CPC. Quoting of wrong provision is not a ground to disallow the petition. The petitioner wanted to rectify the mistake crept in the cross-examination. His contention is that he has not stated with regard to the bill 471. In the cross examination, the petitioner has admitted that the bill Nos.444,464 and 471 related to the business of the plaintiff. His contention is he noticed a mistake after receipt of the certified copy. 6. The petitioner/defendant is the managing partner of Pooja daily producer and he is well educated. If it is so if he answered in the cross examination, it is a conscious statement and no question of either a type mistake or an unconscious statement does not arise. Therefore, the contention, there was a type mistake crept in the deposition has no force and no bonafides. Hence petition is dismissed.” 5 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is ambiguity with regard to the number of bills referred in the cross- examination and therefore, Dw.1 is required to be recalled. In a way, his contention is that the petitioner-defendant has been disputing bill No.471 and therefore, question of his making admission with regard to bill No.471 does not arise. 6. Per contra; learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff submits that there is no ambiguity in the deposition of Dw.1, which needs to be clarified by way of re-examination. The learned trial Judge who recorded the evidence of Dw.1 has considered the rival contentions of the parties and came to the conclusion that whatever stated by the witness in the cross-examination has been recorded. 7. It is very clear from the cross-examination of Dw.1 that the transaction in bill Nos.444, 469 and 471 related to the business of the plaintiff. There is no ambiguity, which needs to be clarified by way of re-examination of Dw.1. Therefore, I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.25-02-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5330 of 2009 (Dated : 25-02-2011)