The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit f led in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the intsrim stay granted by this Hon'ble Court in lA No. '1 of 2023 in CRp No. 326 of 20:23 dated 17-02-2023, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri A. Najeeb Khan Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Sanchit Kumar Bang The Court made the following Common Order:- .-@,g7 '-l-:...i 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.326 and 329 of 2023 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.326 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.1137 of 2022 in O.S.No.375 of 2016 by the XXV Additional Chief Jude, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. C.R.P.No.329 of 2023 is hled aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.1136 of 2022 in O.S.No.375 ol 2016 by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

3. Since both the matters are interconnected, they heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

4. Heard Sri A.Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Adesh Varma, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record

5. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, the parties are referred as they are arrayed in the suit. 2 C.R.P.No,. ]26 and 329 of 2023 LNA, ] \

6. The br-ief facts that are relevant for adrudication of these pel itions are that the plaintiff frled a suit uide O.S.No.375 of 2016 on the file of the XVII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for ejectment, recovery of arrears of rent and future mesne prohts and damages against the defendant. The piaintiff is the joint owner of mulgi bearing municrpal No.10 3 3-6211, admeasuring 115 Sq.fts., situated at N{ehdipatnam, Hyderabad (herein after referred as "suit sche Cule property").

7. The defendant entered appearance and hled written statement and evidence on both sides i.e., the plaintiff as well as the defendant was recorded and the matter u,as posted for argument s. At that stage thc defendant hled tuo applications i.e., I.A.Nr>s. ll37 and 1 136 of 2022 one to reopen the case and anott er to recall PWl for further cross examination B. In the afhdavit hled in support of these applications, the defendalt averred that the plaintiff was examined as PW 1 and durir,g the cross examination, PW1 denied execution of receipts dated 15.O2.2OO5 and 24.06.2005. Therefore, in view of the ar/erments made by the plaintiff in the counter- affidavit, it is necessary to recall PW1 for fi-rrther cross 3 C.R.P.Nos.326 and 329 ot 2023 LNA, ] examination and thus, the defendalt filed I.A.No.234 of 2022 for sending both the receipts to the haldwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signatures under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

9. The plaintiff frled counter in the said applications and stated that he was not disputing the execution of the receipts i.e., Exs.87 and BB, but disputing the payment of Rs. 1 ,30,OOO/ - by way of cheques. The plaintiff further stated that he is onlv disputing the receipt of payment, covered under cheques under receipt and it is for the defendant to prove and establish honoring of cheques covered by the receipt by cogent evidence and therefore, there is no necessity to recall PW 1 for further cross examination and that the applications rvere filed only to protract the matter. The trial Court on due consideration of reasons mentioned in the afiidavit and contentions put forth by both judges, dismissed both the applications by the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, present revisions are hled.

10. Learned counsel for the defendant/ petitioner would submit that the trial Court has come to erroneous conclusion at the applications have been frled at a belated stage and 4 C.R.P.No . 126 and 329 of 2023 LNA, J j.iii; }'a further contended that the trial Court has faik:<l to consider the fact t hat the plaintiff has aclmittedly exer:r r ted receipts under Exs,.B7 and BB in the coullter affidavit a rrl therefore, cross-exarnination of PW1 is required to conlront the stand of the plaintiff. He s,ould further submit that thc Court has committec grave error in observing that the clefenclant was trying to irll up lacunae, u,ithout properly ap p r-eciating the facts and r:irr:umstances of the case. 1 1. Per r:ontra, leamed counsel lor the plaint;l17' resltondent would submjt that the trial Court has rightli, disrnissed both the applicltions, as the same rvere filed at a b(tlateci stage, when the matter was coming up for argrmenl s. Hc would further subnrit that there is no necessit,y to re,:all pW 1 for further cross examination of plair-rtiff, sincc there is no dispute with regard to Exs.B7 and 88 and plaintilf \uas only disputing rvith regarrl to receipt of amounts rrnd not the signature ,rn the receipt. He would further sultrnit that it is for the defr:ndant to prorre payment of amounts r:overed under receipts. 'I'herefore, both the revisions are devoid of merits and therefrrre, liable to be dismissed. '7 ! '' j&d 5 c.R.P.Nos.325 and 329 of 2023 LNA, J

12. A perusal of the record would disclose that there is no dispute with regard to marking of receipts dated 15.02.2O05 and 24.06.2005 as Exs.B7 and BB in the suit. The defendant has fi1ed two applications for recalling and reopening of PW1 for cross examination only for the purpose of confronting PW1 with regard to receipts. It is pertinent to note that entire evidence of both sides have been completed and the matter was coming up for arguments, at that stage, these applications u,ere filed.

13. It is the specific stand of the piaintiff that he is not disputing the signature on receipts however, he is only disputing the payment of amounts mentioned in the receipts, u,hich were purportedly paid by way of cheques. It is also the contention of the plaintiff that it is for the defendant to prove that his cheques were honored under va,lid receipts and that the amounts were duly paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, recalling PW1 for cross-examination would serve no purpose.

74. In the considered opinion of this Court, the applications filed by the defendant are at belated stage as rightly observed by the trial Court and the party to the suit cannot be permitted to hll .up iacunae, that too when the matter was 6 C.R.P.Nos 326 and 329 of 2023 LNA, I coming up for argnments. Therefore, this Court rloes not find any reaso:r to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial C:ourt and further, the petitioner failed to point out any irregu larity and illegality in the order passecl by the trial Court anct accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No costs. As e. sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stan d closed //TRUE COPY// ISMAIL ISTRAR FFICER D t \/ To,

1. The XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One C,l to Sri A. Najeeb Khan, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One Crl to Sri Sanchit Kumar Bang, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies VC / I I I I I I ! I i I I I I l ' I d \ 19 SEP 2{E I r$ c ...\. .1 I ;r 7 .| ,.} / .) -,,,,':.. 1y' t HIGH CC)URT DATED: 2310412025 COMMON ORDER /i. ,t, .:l .t -:) ,':) lc, i l). CRP.Nos;.326 and 329 of 2023 \ I ! i I I I I ! I l DISMSSING THE CRP NOs.326 AND 329 OF 2023 WITHOUT COSTS / 4z 1?./8 //7./<