The High Court · 2025

fvlakala Srinivas, Sio Not known Aged . lvlajor, Occ. G.S, Telanana State Handloom Co-Op Society Limited R/o Sitharamapuram, Bowenpally, Secunderabad Hyderabad - 500 001 ...PETITIONER/Plaintiff ...RespondenUDefendant lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of 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.676 of 2015 pending before the Hon'ble lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending the disposal of the present CRP. CIVIL REVISPN PETITION No: 1767 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 2410312025 Passed in 1.A.No.153 of 2025 in OS No.676 of 2015 on the file of the lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. /; 7 Between: S.V.Rama Narasaiah, S/o Employee, Cheneta Bhavan, Papaiah Aged about 67 years, Occ 3rd Floor, Nampally Retired AND Makala Srinivas, S/o Not known Aged . Major, Occ. G.S, Telanana State Handloom Co-Op Society Limited Ri/o Sitharamapuram, Bowenpally, Secunderabad Hyderabad - 500 001 ...Petitioner/Plaintiff ...RespondenUDefendant lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of 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.676 of 2015 pending before the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending the disposal of the present CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V RAMU Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. HAMSA DURGA REPRESENTING SRI D RAGHAVULU The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER .I'HE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PE'[ITI ON Nos.l794 and1767 OF 2025 COMMON OR-DER. Heard Mr.V.Ramu, leamed counsel for the petitioner and Ms.Hamsa Durga, learned counsel representing Mr.D.Raghavulu, leamed counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

2. The challenge in the present civil revision petitions is to the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the lX Addititonal Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in I.A.Nos. 152 and 153 of 2025 in O.S.No.676 of 2015. Vide the impugned order, the learned trial Court refused to allow the petition preferred by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 and also another I.A. filed under Section l5l of C.P.C. seeking for recalling and reopening of the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 so also, the evidence of PW3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff who has filed a suit for defamation against the defendant based upon the so-called pamphlet dated 06.04.2015. However, the suit has been filed by the petitioner-plaintiff based upon a xerox copy of the so-called pamphlet, dated 06.04.2015. The said pamphlet was not marked in the course of the evidence, since it was a xerox copy. PWl, PW2 and also PW3 have all disputed the 2 pamphlet to have been published by them. The petitioner-plaintiff subsequently, now, wants to recall the evidence of PWl, PW2 and also PW3 by way of these two applications i.e. I.A.Nos.l52 and 153 of 2075

3. Learned trial Court after considering the objections raised by all the parties has reached to the conclusion that since the document has already been rnarked as Ex.A.7 as admitted by PWl in his cross- examination, there was no necessity further to recall and reopen the evidence of PW2 and PW3 to prove the trustworthiness of Ex.A.7. It has also been observed by the leamed trial Court that after the evidence of all the parties was closed, the petitioner-plaintiff had taken three adjournments for final arguments of the suit itself and it was only thereafter that the present two I.As. have been hled for reopen and recall by the petitioner-plaitniff. The trial Court also took into consideration the fact that the original suit in the present CRP i.e. O.S.No.676 of 2015 which was one which falls under the category of more than ten years old cases. It was in this context the trial Court have tbund that no strong case was made out for allowing the two applications i.e. I.A.Nos.l52 and 153 of 2025. , I I 3

4. Having gone through the contentions put forth by either side and a perusal of the record, this Court does not find any itlegality or perversity on the part of the trial Court in the course of deciding the aforesaid two applications. Moreover, whatever the contentions being put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner are all admitted factual matrix, where there does not seem to be any dispute so far as the entire suit being based upon a xerox copy so-called pamphtet published on

06.04.2015. The impugned order, therefore, is found to be proper legal and justified. No case is made out calling for interference to the impugned order. The rejection of aforesaid two l.As. would not foreclose the right of the petitioner-plaintiff in arguing the matter strictly in accordance with law.

5. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/. A. JAYASREE AS ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER I To, \d"

1. The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri V Ramu, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri D Raghavulu, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ABK-ikarn \ HIGH COURT DATED: 1210912025 COMMON ORDER CRP Nos: 1794 and 1767 Of 2025 s zoJAll ?026 * -\ / I I REJECTING BOTH THE CRPs @ t6 b)