HC - when witness was cross examined on the aspect on which he is sought to be recalled - no recall is permitted

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT HYDERABAD

The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy

Civil Revision Petition No.1825 of 2012

Date:17.04.2012

Between:

Maqbool Khan                                        … Petitioner

And

Ms.G.Shankar & Co., Mangalhat,

Hyderabad and others                       … Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. K.B. Ramanna Dora

Counsel for the respondents: None                                     

                                                   

The Court made the following :

Order:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 27.12.2011 in I.A.No.557 of 2011 in R.C.No.464 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad.

The respondents filed the above-mentioned rent control case seeking the petitioner’s eviction from the petition schedule property. After the evidence on the respondents’ side was closed, the petitioner filed I.A.No.557 of 2011 to recall P.W.1 i.e., respondent No.2 herein for the purpose of cross-examination with regard to the plaint and written statement in O.S.No.6812 of 2003 on the file of the learned IX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that in the written statement filed by respondent No.2 herein in the said suit, he has averred that he is the owner of the mulgies in the said complex and that contrary to the said stand taken by him, in the present rent control case it was pleaded that respondent No.1 is the owner of the property. Hence, the petitioner sought for recalling of P.W.1-respondent No.2 for his further cross-examination on this aspect. The learned Rent Controller dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition.

A perusal of the order of the learned Rent Controller would show that he has extracted the deposition of P.W.1 during his cross-examination which clearly shows that the point on which the petitioner sought for recalling of P.W.1 was already put-forth to the witness during his cross-examination. P.W.1 was clearly confronted on the ownership of the demised premises with reference to the contents of the written statement filed in O.S.No.6812 of 2003. Inasmuch as P.W.1 was already cross-examined on the aspect on which he is sought to be recalled, the learned Rent Controller has rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. Hence, 
I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Rent Controller.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, C.R.P.M.P.No.2446 of 2012 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

__________________________

          (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)

17^th April, 2012

cbs