The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner / Respondent / Defendant AND Shaik Rafeeq Ahrned, S/o. M.A.Razaq, Aged. 54 Years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 2€-183, Mukrampura Locality, Karimnagar Town and District, T.S. ...Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: '1634 OF 2025 Petition under Adicre 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to call receive the documerts for records and set-aside the order dated. 06-03- 2O25 passed by the Hon'bte Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in allowing l.A. No. 349 of 2025 in OS No. OB of 2O22 as Unjust, arbitrary, against law and facts ,-'' 1'-- of the case and consequentially dismiss lA.No.349 of 2025 in OS No. OB of 2022 in the interest of justice. Between: Gujjala Swapla, D/o Raji Reddy, Wo. pullelaJagan Mchan, Aged. 35 years, Occ Privale Employee (Software Engineer), Ryo. H.No. 3-94I Ramakrishna Colony (Village), Thimmapur Mandal, karimriagar District, I .S. ...Petitioner / Respondent / Defendant AND Shaik Rafeeq Ahmed, S/o. M.A.Razaq, Aged. 54 years, ,Jcc. Business, Rl/o H.No. 2-8-183, Mukrampura Locality, Karihnagar Town and Diskict, T.S_ ...Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 cPc praying that in the circumsrances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Couri may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in os No. oB ot 2022 on the file of Hon'ble principal District Judge at Karimnagar pending disposal of the present cRp in the interest of justice. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1660 0F 2025 Petition under Article 2Zl of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High ccrurl may be pleased to call receive the documents for records and set-aside the order dated. 06-03- 2025 passed by the Hon'ble Principal District Judge, Karimnagar in allowing l.A. No. 348 of 2025 in OS No. 08 ot 2022 as Unjust, arbitrary, against law and facts of the case and consequentially dismiss lA.No.34g of 202s in os No- oB ot 2022 in the interest of lustice. Between Gujjala Swapna D/o Raji Reddy, Wo. pu elaJagan Mohan, Aged. 35 years, Occ Private Employee (Software Engineer), Ry6. g.tto. 3_94] Ramakrishn j Colony (Village), Thimmapur Mandal, Karimriagar District, T.S. ...Petitioner / Respondent / Defendant AND !E!-::--.---- ,-t 9 Shaik Rafeeq Ahmed, S/o. M.A.Razaq, Aged. 54 Y-ears' Occ. Business, R/o' H.No. 2-8-183, Mukrampura Locality, Karimnagar Town and District, T.S. ...Respondent / Petitioner / Plaintiff lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that ifl the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in oS No. 08 ot zcl22 on the file of Hon'ble Principal District Judge at Karimnagar p'ending disposal of the present CRP in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitione(s): Sri Gummalla Bhasker Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following Common Order:- -EF-_- /' HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CML REVISION PETITION Nos.l 603 1634and L66Oof2ol25 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri Gummalla Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.

2. These three Civil Revisions are filed under Article 222 of the Constitution of India, challenging the comrnon order, dated 06.03.2O25 passed in I.A.Nos.34A, 349 anrl liSO of 2O2S in O.S.Nos.8 of 2022 by the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar.

3. Respondenr herein had filed a suit vide O.S.No.g of 2022 against the pctitioner herein for specific pr:rformance of an Agreement of Sale, dated 31.O1.2O2O. The said suit is posted for arguments. At that stage, respondcnt has filed three InterlocLltorv Applicatiorrs i.e., I.A.Nos.348, 349 and 35O of 2025 in O.S.No.8 of 2022. 1.A.No.348 of 2025 to re-open the evidence ol- plaintiff, I.A.No.349 of 2025 to r.eceive the documents or.r record and l.A. No.35O of 2025 to issue summons to Sri M.Kanukuntla Shankar, Advo,:ate to elicit the true facts. Respondent has liled the said applications, contending that the suit is for specihc performance of KL,J C.R.P.No.1&)3 of 2O2S and batcll 2 agreement of sale, he got issued legal notice, dated

23.12.2021 to the petitioner/defendant before hling the suit and the same was served on 31.L2.2O21. ThereaJter, she has issued a reply, dated 05.01.2022, through Sri M. Kanukuntla Shankar, Advocate. But, during the cross exarnination, petitioner herein/defendant (D.Wl) denied the receipt of the Iegal notice and issuing of reply notice and she deposed that she got issued a reply notice on behalf of her father through the said advocate. Therefore, prayed to reopen the plaintifl's evidence for receiving the aforesaid documents and issr'rance of summons to Sri Kanukuntla Shankar, Advocate is necessary to elicit the afore said facts'

4. Petitioner herein has filed counter opposing the said application contending that the respondent herein did not lile any application for recall of P.W. 1. The said suit is at argument stage. Respondent is trying to fiIl up the lacunas and the same is impermissible

5. Vide common order, dated 06.03 2025, learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar allowed all the aforesaid three applications on pavment of costs of Rs' 5OO / - to other KL,J C.R.P.No.l6t)3 ctf 2025 and batch 3 side and on issuing summons to witness Sri Kanukuntla Shankar, Advocate to give evidence by 18.03.20:15,

6. Challenging comm,rn order, petitioner/ defendant filed the present three :rpplications contending that though there is no recall application to recall P.W.1, learned triai Court also recalled p.W. 1. l,hus, the trial Court committed jurisdictional error. The trial rlourt did not consider the contentions of the petitioner. Respondent/ plaintiff is trying to fill up the lacunas in the evidence. She has filed the present applications at the betated stage.

7. As discussed supra, the sriiL is lor specif-rc performance of agreement of sale. The saicl suit is posted for e.rglrments, at that stage, respondent/ plaintiff had liled the afrresaid three applications to reopen, to receive the documents and to issue summons to the nritness contendir-tg that during the course of hearing, petitioner herein/D.W. I denied the re<:eipt of legal notice and issuance of repl_v notice. Therefore, it is just and necessary to file the said documents and elicit tht.said facts.

8. It is specificallr. contended b1,. the learned counsel for the responclent that due Lo inadvei-tencc, he I- as, fiiecl the KL,J C.R.P.No.1603 of 2025 crtd btttch 4 aforesaid notice and reply notice. Therefbre, it .is necessa{/ to file legal notice, dated 23.12.2021 and acknowledgment copy, dated 31.12.2021. He has frled just and another suit against the father of the defendant. Therefore, due to inadvertence, he has filed the aforesaid legal notice issued to father of the respondent in the present suit instead of hling the same in other suit. On consideration of the said facts and on considering the submissions of counsel, learned trial Court held that it is only accidental slip. Once re-open petition is allowed, recalling of the witness is only formal. There is no irregularitv committed by the trial Court. An opportunity wiil be given to the petitioner to cross examine the said Advocate and also to make her submissions with regard to the receipt of legal notice, dated 23.12'2021 and issuance of reply. Instead of doing so, the petitioner filed the present revisions. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no error,. much less the jurisdictional error committed by the trial Court in allowing the said I'As', vide common order, dated 06.03.2025. It is a reasoned order and well found order. Petitioner herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said common order. Therefore, all the KL,J C.R.P.No.16tt3 rf 2025 and botch 5 three revisions fail and they are liable to be ctismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed. However, libertlr is granted to the petitioner to raise all the contentions and grounds which she has raised in the present revisions during trial and it is for the trial Court to consider the same As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, il any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. No costs. //TRUE COPY// \ Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL OEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFF]CER V 1 . The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar 2. One CC to Sri Gummalla Bhasker Reddy, Advocate [OFUC] 3. Two CD Copies To, VC HIGH COURT DATED: 02lOSl2O25 ..a' sx\ (i'( t. (-\,\ i I ',(., [t S;PM , rl') COMMON ORDER GRP.Nos.l603, 1634 and 1660 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP NOs.1603, 1634 AND 1660 0F 2025 >t