The High Court · 2025

.... Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.40 ol 2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge At Bodhan, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and pass, Pending disposal of CRP 441 ot 2025, on the file of the High Court. a The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the order of the High Court order dated made herein and upon hearing the arguments of SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI Advocate for the petition6(s), Advocate and the Court made the CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:476 OF 2025: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Common Docket Order daled 23122024 passed 1.A.NO.695 OF 2024 in O.S.NO. 40 OF 2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Senior Civil Judge, at Bodhan. Between: M. Sayeeswari, W/o. Laxman Rao, Aged about 67 years, Occ. House wife, R/o.Rakasipet, Bodhan Town, Nizamabad District. Petitioner/Plaintiff AND

1. Shaik Musheer, S/o.Basith , Aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.NO.4-2-297, beside Surya Nursing Home, Near Bus Stand area, Bodhan Town, Nizamabad Diskict.

2. Palakurti Satyanarayana, S/o.P.Kistaiah, Aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o.H.N0.1 -2-33, Rakasipet Locality, Bodhan Town, Nizamabad District.

3. Simhadri Niraja, Wo.Simhadri Shiva Prasad, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Household, R/o.H.NO. 14-345, Saraswati Nagar Locality, Bodhan Town, Nizamabad District. .... Respondents/Defendants The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and the order of the High Court order dated made herein and upon hearing the arguments of SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI Advocate for the Petitione(s), Advocate for the Respondent(s) and the Court made the following. ORDER ,. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVI SION PETITIO NN os. 441 AND 476 0F 2025 COMMON ORDER Heard tVlr.srinivas Velagapudi. learned counsel for the revision ln spite of service of notice, the petitioner/plaintiff . respondents/defendants choose to remain silent.

2. As the causes are interwoven, these revisions are heard together and decided by this common order

3. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the revision petitioner as plaintiff filed suit vlCe O.S No.40 of 2017 seeking recovery of possession, mandatory injunction, perpetual injunction, damages and compensation for use and occupation of suit schedule 'A' to 'C' properties from respondents/defendants. ln the suit, 1.A.No.696 of 2024 was filed to reopen the suit for recalling Court Witness No.1 (CW-1) and lA.No695 of 2024 has been filed to recall Mandal Surveyor (CW-1) to exhibit the coordinates produced by her. These lnterlocutory Applications *tf allowed by common order dated 23.12.2024, hower.,er, limilins the recall of CW-1 only to the extent of marking the document grieved by the order in 1.A.No.695 2 ,\ / t(./ (-.ll./).\ar.lll c 1176 al ll)2t a ot 2024, C.R.p. No.441 of 2ozs and qg2in5t the order in I A.No.696 of 2024, C.R.P No 476 af 2O2S have been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that basing on the application, the tvlandal Surveyor/CW-1 has assisted the Advocate Commissioner in fixing the boundaries of the suit schedule property and she was examined as witness. However, corresponding to her statement about the coordinates generated in the GEODE machine, no record has been placed. Therefore, filed petitions with a prayer to reopen the suit and recall the witness (CW-1) for marking the coordinates, which were generated in the GEODE machine. The trial Court, having accepted the pleading and relevancy of the coordinates, allowed the petitions anr: reopened lhe case and recalled t\rlandal Surveyor/CW- 1 , however, for llmited purpose of exhibiting the coordinates already produced by her.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that though in pursuance of the order, the Mandal Surveyor/CW-i was recalled and exhibited coordinates, the particulars of the longitudes and latitudes were given inversely, in the other words in the place of longitudes the value of latitude has been mentioned and vice versa. Though this discrepancy was pointed out, the trial Couri did not allow the cross-examination of the witness, as the witness was recalled for t I 7 a 3 \ .tit. / (-lt./).,\a,.71l ltn.l 1,6 ol )02t limited purpose of marking of documents. He further pleads that if the coordinates are taken into account, the location would be somewhere in Europe, as such, this aspect would cause prejudice to the case of the revision petitioner/plaintiff , hence, prayed for interference.

6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel and perused the materials on record

7. ln the relevant petitions, the revision petitloner sought for reopening the suit and recalling the CW-l for the purpose of marking the map, which was filed by CW-1 and it has been specifically pleaded that the documents are essential for correlating the boundaries. However, it has been specified that she did not produce the coordinates generated by GEODE machine but produced coordinates prepared by her basing on it. Nowhere it has been pointed out that the coordinates were improperly or inversely referred by the witness. ln such a position, having regard to the pleading that the documents are essential for fair adjudication, the trial Court was proper in concluding that only to the extent of marking of the documents, the witness has to be recalled, -as the witness was already examined. ln that view, the petitions filed by the revision petitioner were indeed allowed. I t { 4 \ i lt. / (..1<.P '\.r.'.i] I tnt/ +7t; ol 2t.)2; 1 $

8. The present contention of the revision petitioner is that the witness (CW-l) alternatively given the coordinates, in contrast to the one generated by GEODE machine. However, as noted above, this aspect was never been pleaded in the petitions before the trial Court. Further, as per the submissions, it is evident that in accordance with the impugned order, the witness was recalled and the documents were also marked. ln this position, to resolve the conlested error in the statement

9. of the witness. granting leave to the petitioner tc file relevant applications afresh before the triai Court explarning the necessity of further examination of the witness. is found appropriate. Accordingly, ordered. Upon such applications, the triai Court shall consider the merits and pass appropriate orders, at the earliest

10. With the above observations and liberty, the C.R.P. Nos.441 and 476 of 2025 aie disposed of. No order as to costs Pending nriscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed t To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL PI=P-u-l-RE-G-I-sIE4B:-^ , SECTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Bodhan 2. One CC to SRl. SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One spare copy Psl HIGH COURT DATED.19t02t2025 t-. h r 1il s r,( I€ 6,( z o o o e 1+ I 30,UN lffi o a Hi-'l U ORDER CRP.No.441 ot 2025 & CRP.NO.476 0F 2025 b {8 ,/d / DISPOSING THE CRPS