Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 244 (AP)

Ankareddi Bhavaji Patrudu v. Parvada Apparao

2019-09-20

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

body2019
ORDER : U. Durga Prasad Rao, J. 1. Challenge in the Civil Revision Petition is to the order dated 16.04.2019 in I.A. No. 154 of 2019 in O.S. No. 300 of 2014 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant under Section 151 of C.P.C. to reopen the matter for the purpose of filing of chief-affidavit of D.W. 3. 2. O.S. No. 300 of 2014 filed by the respondent/plaintiff for a money decree on the strength of the pronote dated 02.01.2012 for Rs. 4,00,000/-. The defendant contests the suit. While so, the matter was posted to 22.01.2019 for further evidence of defendant and on that date, as there was no representation on behalf of defendant even till 4:45 p.m., the trial Court was pleased to close the further evidence of the defendant and posted the matter for arguments to 30.01.2019. The petitioner/defendant filed I.A. No. 154 of 2019 to reopen his evidence for the purpose of filing of chief-affidavit of D.W. 3. The respondent/plaintiff opposed the said petition and the trial Court dismissed the said petition observing that the question of reopening the matter for the purpose of filing chief affidavit of D.W. 3 does not arise, since the suit was still kept open for submission of arguments and since the evidence of the defendant alone was closed by the Court, same has to be sought to be reopened by petitioner/defendant and the relief was not properly framed by petitioner/defendant. It should be noted the petition was dismissed not on any other grounds. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition. 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. 4. At the outset, this Court is not in agreement with the reason shown by the trial Court for dismissal of the petition. The trial Court was under the impression that since the suit was still kept open for hearing arguments and as the matter was not posted for judgment and therefore the petitioner/defendant ought to have sought for relief of reopening of his evidence instead of reopening of the suit and therefore the relief was not properly sought for. It is true, the evidence of defendant is concerned, the same was closed on 22.01.2019 and the matter is still kept open for hearing of arguments and there is no demur in it. It is true, the evidence of defendant is concerned, the same was closed on 22.01.2019 and the matter is still kept open for hearing of arguments and there is no demur in it. In this regard, the petitioner's prayer in I.A. No. 154 of 2019 is to the effect that the matter may be reopened for the purpose of filing of chief-affidavit of D.W. 3. Through such prayer, what is sought to be reopened is the evidence of the defendant that was closed. The phrase 'Reopen the matter' should be understood in that context but not in its literal sense of reopening the matter itself, as it is known to one and all, particularly the parties to the suit, that the suit is still at the stage of arguments only. Therefore, the trial Court ought not to have dismissed the petition on such a mere technicality. It should be kept in mind by the Courts particularly the trial Courts, that more than the shape, the substance is essential to test the qualification. The Judge should be a judicious-jurist but not procedural-pedant, lest the justice should be a casualty. In this case, the petitioner/defendant, along with I.A. No. 154 of 2019, also filed the chief-affidavit of D.W. 3, who according to him is an important witness to substantiate his defence plea taken in the written statement. In such an event, the Court ought to have taken into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances in the case and passed an order. However, unfortunately the trial Court basing on technicalities, dismissed the petition. Therefore, the order impugned needs to be set aside. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and consequently I.A. No. 154 of 2019 is allowed on petitioner/defendant paying costs of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) to the respondent/plaintiff within two (02) weeks from the date of this order. The trial Court shall allow the petitioner/defendant to produce the evidence of D.W. 3 alone and permit the respondent/plaintiff to cross-examine the witness and then after hearing the arguments of both sides pass the judgment on merits in O.S. No. 300 of 2014. This entire exercise shall be completed within two (02) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.