(Prayer: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to set aside the order dated 26/11/2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, in I.A. No. 1207/2024 in O.S. No. 3/2021 and to recall the witness of PW-2 and PW-3 and pass such

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to dispense with filing of certified copy of the Order dated 26/11/2025, in I.A. No. 1207/2024 in O.S. No.3/2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, and pass such

IA NO: 2 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.3/2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, and pass such

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the order dated 26/11/2025 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, in LA. No. 1208/2024 in O.S. No. 3/2021 and recall the witness of PW-2 and PW-3 and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.3/2021 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri, and pass)

Common Order:

1. The respondent herein had filed a suit for recovery of money, on the basis of a promissory note dated 08.09.2018 and another promissory note dated 25.12.2017, against the petitioner herein, by way of O.S.No.3 of 2021 before the Principal Junior Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mangalagiri.

2. In the course of the trial, the respondent examined himself as P.W.1 and marked the two promissory notes as Exs.A1 & A2. The attestors of these promissory notes were also examined as P.Ws.2 & 3 and had been cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner herein.

3. After the closure of evidence, on behalf of the respondent, the petitioner moved I.A.Nos.1207 & 1208 of 2024, for reopening the evidence on behalf of the respondent and for recalling P.Ws.2&3, for further cross- examination. These applications were resisted by the respondent. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court was pleased to dismiss these two applications by way of a Common Order, dated 26.11.2025. Aggrieved by the said Common Order, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of these Civil Revision Petitions.

4. As the Civil Revision Petitions rise out of a Common Order and relate to same issue, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.

5. Heard Sri Bandla Pavan, learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. The affidavit filed in support of these applications merely stated that the petitioner had come to know of certain new facts regarding P.Ws 2 & 3, which he discussed with his counsel. Thereupon, his counsel had advised the petitioner to bring the said facts to the notice of the Trial Court by recalling and cross-examining the P.Ws. 2 & 3. The same contentions were raised in the course of the arguments also.

7. The Trial Court after going through the affidavits and after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, had held that no details of the new facts, which had come to the notice of the petitioner were set out in the affidavit and that the lengthy cross-examination of P.Ws.2 & 3 regarding execution of Exs.A2 & A3 promissory notes does not leave out anything further to be considered. The Trial Court also took into account the fact that these applications were filed 11 months after examination of PW.2 had been completed and 5 months after the examination of P.W.3 had been completed. The said delay was also taken into account.

8. Sri Bandla Pavan, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the information obtained by the petitioner, regarding P.Ws.2 & 3, would have a vital bearing on the case and the credibility of Exs.A1 & A2 promissory notes and denying further examination of these witnesses would be harmful to the interest of the petitioner.

9. As pointed by the Trial Court, the petitioner has not set out any of the facts, which had come to light subsequent to the cross-examination. The petitioner has not chosen to set out any of those facts even before this Court. In the absence of specifics, it would not be appropriate to allow these applications for reopening evidence and recalling witness for further cross- examination.

10. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the Common Order, dated 26.11.2025 of the Trial Court and accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.