THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS:5340 OF 2009 & 5088 OF 2009 DATE:02.09.2011 C.R.P.NO:5340 OF 2009 BETWEEN THEEPULAPUDI RAMANAMMA …PETITIONER AND KONDURI SRIDHAR REDDY …RESPONDENT. C.R.P.NO:5088 OF 2009 BETWEEN THEEPULAPUDI RAMANAMMA …PETITIONER AND KONDURI SRIDHAR REDDY …RESPONDENT. THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS:5340 OF 2009 & 5088 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and no appearance is made on behalf of the respondent in spite of the notice served on him. C.R.P 5340 of 2009 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.8.2009 in I.A.No:409 of 2009 in O.S.No:415 of 2006 whereas C.R.P 5088 of 2009 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.8.2009 in I.A.No:408 of 2009 in O.S.No:415 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The petitioner in both the revision petitions is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. I.A.409 of 2009 is filed by the plaintiff seeking to reopen the evidence on her side and to adduce further oral and documentary evidence by marking the documents. I.A.408 is filed under Order 7 Rule 14 (3) C.P.C seeking to condone the delay in filing the documents and to receive the same. Since the parties are one and the same and the relief sought for in both the revisions, is a consequential one, both the revision petitions are disposed of by a common order. The Court below having observed in I.A.409 of 2009 that the petition filed by the plaintiff has no valid ground to permit her to reopen the evidence keeping in view the evidence already adduced by both sides and the petition is filed only to protract the case and to delay the proceedings, dismissed the I.A.409 of 2009 and consequently, dismissed I.A.408 of 2009 filed under Order 7 Rule 4 (3) C.P.C seeking to condone the delay in filing the documents and to receive the same on the ground that it has become infructuous. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision petitions. On 21.12.2009, this Court granted status quo until further orders. In spite of service of notices on the respondent in both the revisions, neither the respondent is present nor any representation is made on his behalf. However, this revision is taken up for disposal on its own merits. Heard the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. The case of the petitioner is that the defendant executed the two suit promissory notes on 1.8.2003 and 1.9.2003 agreeing to repay the suit amount with interest at 24% and that the defendant and his sister (D.w.2) with an intention evade the repayment have taken the pleas that the said promissory notes were executed towards the dowry demand. It is also her further case that some documents were traced by her after the demise of her husband and some documents were traced by her counsel and she filed those documents in O.S.79 of 2004 on the file of the 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, which was filed by her against her son Theepalapudi Bhaskararao for cancellation of registered settlement deed dated 10.8.2003 pertaining to her self acquired house property on the ground that the settlement deed was obtained by her son and his wife T.Vanaja by playing fraud and coercion on her and she filed a copy application for the certified copies of the said documents and those documents plays a vital role in the present suit and therefore, the suit in O.S.415 of 2006 may be opened for the purpose of adducing further evidence on her behalf. The defendant filed the counter denying the case of the petitioner. In support of his contention that the Court has ample power to receive the document which could not be filed along with the plaint and in case the documents sought to be produced could not be traced earlier, the permission to recall witness and mark the documents, can be granted, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the High Court of Madras reported in S.RATHINASWAMY AND OTHERS VS. SMIT S.BHANUMATHI AND OTHERS ([1]) wherein it has been observed at paragraph 8 thus: “Aggrieved over the order of dismissal of the applications, the plaintiffs have preferred these civil revision petitions contending that Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C has not been deleted by the Amendment, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that O.18 R.17 C.P.C is the provision which enables the Court to recall the witness at any stage to put question in the suit. Submitting that wide powers conferred upon the Court under O.18 R.17 C.P.C learned counsel for the revision petitioners has relied upon the decisions reported in 1989 (1) Madras L.W 504 and AIR 1984 Delhi 439. It is submitted that for clearing any ambiguity, either the Court may recall the witness or at the instance of the parties. It is further submitted that though O.13 R 2 C.P.C has been omitted by the C.P.C (Amendment) Act 1999, under O.VII R.14 (3) and under O.8 R.1-A (iii) C.P.C the Court is conferred with the power to receive the documents (which have not been filed along with the plaint or written statement) in genuine cases. Submitting that the Court below has not properly appreciated the case of the revision petitioners in the light of the amended provisions, learned counsel for the revision petitioners prayed to set aside the impugned orders and permitting the plaintiffs to file the documents which are the public documents and that no prejudice would be caused to the defendants by receiving those documents.” It is relevant to go through the provisions of Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C which makes it clear that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings recall any witness who has been examined. It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the documents, which cannot be filed along with the plaint and which are now sought to be adduced in evidence, are the public documents and the relevancy or otherwise of the said documents can be decided during the course of marking the same, but not at its thrashold and the provisions of section 151 C.P.C confer inherent powers to the Court to reopen the suit for the purpose in question. I see force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Apart from that, the Court below has failed to keep in mind the enabling provision, which confers powers to recall any witness at any stage of the proceedings. For the above reasons, I am of the view that the order under revision in C.R.P.5340 of 2009 suffers from illegality and thereby, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, C.R.P 5340 of 2009 is allowed and the order passed in I.A.No:409 of 2009 is set aside. Consequently, I.A.No:409 of 2009 stands allowed. No order as to costs. In view of the said order, C.R.P.5088 of 2009 is allowed and consequently, I.A.408 of 2009 stands allowed. No order as to costs. _________________ Justice G.Chandraiah Gurc. Date:02.09.2011 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS:5340 OF 2009 & 5088 OF 2009 DATE:02.09.2011 [1] AIR 2006 MADRAS 221