IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH (10TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5460 of 2009, Civil Revision Petition No.354 of 2010 & Civil Revision Petition No.520 of 2010 Between: Allam Subbaiah Gurappa … Petitioner And: The L.A.O., cum Revenue Division Officer, Tirupati & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5460 of 2009, Civil Revision Petition No.354 of 2010 & Civil Revision Petition No.520 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: These three revisions are directed against the order dated 21.08.2009 in IA Nos.250, 251 and 249 of 2008 respectively, in LA OP No.67 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, wherein the said applications filed for reopen, recall and fresh recording of evidence in Telugu, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein was examined as RW.1 in the above proceedings and chief affidavit was filed and his cross- examination was also recorded on 18.03.2008. As seen from the impugned order, the petitioner never raised any objection when his cross-examination was recorded by the Court in English. The petitioner is a literate and retired Police Officer. Admittedly, he can read and write English. It appears that the petitioner after recording of his evidence went away refusing to sign in the deposition. As seen from the impugned order, the then Presiding Officer, who recorded evidence of the petitioner, made an endorsement to the effect that the deposition was typed to her translation and dictation in open Court and the witness went away refusing to sign, though he is able to read and understand English. Thereafter, the present applications are filed for reopen, recall and fresh recording of evidence in Telugu. Having raised no objection for recording of the evidence, which was done in the open Court and having allowed recording of evidence in English, the conduct of the petitioner, who is a retired Senior Police Officer in refusing to sign the deposition and seeking fresh recording of evidence in Telugu, is unpardonable. Further the allegation of the petitioner that the Court has forcibly recorded his evidence in English makes it all the more objectionable. 4. Be that as it may, the question of recalling the petitioner for recording of evidence in Telugu does not arise. It is not as though the petitioner intends to adduce further evidence. He wants the same evidence, which is already recorded in English, to be once again recorded in Telugu. The power of the Court under Order XVIII Rule 17 CPC to recall and examine any witness, who is already examined, is not a ground for such purpose, nor to assist a witness like the petitioner. Section 137 CPC states that ‘the language which, on the commencement of this Code, is the language of any Court subordinate to a High Court shall continue to be the language of such subordinate Court until the State Government otherwise directs’. Admittedly, by the date of commencement of the Code in 1908, the language of the subordinate courts is English. Sub-section (2) of Section 137 CPC states that ‘the State Government may declare what shall be the language of any such Court and in what character applications to and proceedings in such courts shall be written’. 5. The petitioner seeks to place reliance on sub-section (3) of Section 137 CPC, which states that where the Court requires or allows anything other than the recording of evidence to be done in writing in any such Court, such writing may be in English. From this provision, no inference can be drawn that recording of evidence shall be done in a language other than English. Sub- section (3) of Section 137 CPC has no application to the present case. 6. The petitioner seeks to rely upon G.O.Ms.No.1295 dated 16.07.1962, wherein it was notified that insofar as Chittoor district is concerned, Telugu and Tamil are the languages of the Court. Nothing is placed on record to show that English ceased to be the language of the Court. Even assuming that Telugu and Tamil were notified as languages of the Court insofar as Chittoor district is concerned under the above G.O., so long as English does not cease to be the language of the Court, recording of evidence in English is permissible. The petitioner cannot therefore question the competence of the Court to record the evidence in English by taking shelter under G.O.Ms.No.1295. That apart, having allowed the evidence to be recorded in English and being literate, a retired senior Police Officer, his refusal to sign the deposition on the ground that it was not recorded in the language of his choice instead of furthering his desire to espouse the cause of his mother tongue would only land him in unpleasant consequences. The present application seeking recall of petitioner for recording his evidence once again in Telugu is nothing but an abuse of process of law. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly dismissed the application holding that recording of evidence of the petitioner again for second time in Telugu does not arise. The impugned order does not call for any interference. 7. In the result, all the revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 10.06.2011 bss