THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.376 TO 378 OF 2009 DATED: 28-10- 2010. Between S.Narayanamma … Petitioner-Defendant And P.Sudeesna @ Sudha …Respondent-Plaintiff THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.376 TO 378 OF 2009 COMMON ORDER: These revisions are filed against the orders, dated 04-11-2008, in I.A.Nos.601, 600 and 602 of 2008 in O.S.No.102 of 2006 respectively, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti, whereunder and whereby the applications filed to reopen the plaintiff’s side evidence, to recall P.Ws. 1 and 2 for further cross- examination and to condone the delay in filing the documents, were dismissed. 2. The defendant was examined in the trial Court. The suit was coming up for further evidence to be adduced on behalf of the defendant. At that stage, the present applications were filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that a specific plea has been taken in the written statement that the suit promissory note was fabricated with the connivance of attestor and scribe, that one of the attestors is very close friend of P.W.1 and they studied in a school up to 10th class and to confront the study certificate, recalling of P.Ws. 1 and 2 is necessary and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned orders. 4. Rule 17 of Order XVIII empowers the Court to recall any witness at any stage of the suit who has already been examined. If it appears to the court trying the suit at any stage of the proceeding that it is necessary to recall and further examine a witness whose evidence has been recorded, it can do so. The power conferred on the Court under this rule is with care, caution and circumspection. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1A of Order VIII CPC, as amended by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002, provides that the document which ought to have been produced in the court by the dependant but is not produced shall not be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit without leave of Court. 5. In the written statement filed by the defendant, the only plea taken is that one of the attestors is no other than the maternal uncle of the plaintiff and other attestor Usha Rani is friend of the plaintiff, who was examined as P.W.2. P.W.1 who is the plaintiff denied her friendship with Usha Rani. Similarly Usha Rani also denied her friendship with the plaintiff except knowing each other. The defendant seems to have obtained school certificate to show that P.Ws. 1 and 2 studied in one school up to 10th class and those documents have to be confronted with P.Ws. 1 and 2. It is not the case of the defendant that P.Ws. 1 and 2 studied in one school and they are closely associated with each other during the period when they prosecuted their studies up to 10th class. There cannot be any dispute that without there being specific pleading, any amount of evidence is valueless. If the defendant wants to prove that they are close friends, she can as well summon the Head Master or the concerned authority to show that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are classmates. Therefore, the trial Court rightly dismissed the applications and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. No order as to costs. ________________ K.C. BHANU, J DATED:28.10.2010 Hsd