The High Court · 2025

lvl/s.Narne Esliri€ s pvt Ltd Rep. by its Chairman and \4anagin,y Director. Col. Ranga Rac Narre (Retd) Sloit_iie'frf.V.'frir'i,l'r, Ari.o ahout Z4 years. Occ Business, Jtfire rt tto.t cunroctEricii"", s^"iir"riolr"Jt M/s. Gomedh;r Estates pvt.._Ltd., Rep_by its. Director,Gokul Nr,rme, S/o. Col. Ranga Ra,r r{lrr-^ (Retcl) Hindu,.aged a'U"ut ++ lr.]ii'.. Or;c Br.rsiness, Office at 1 Gunro:k E:rctave, sdbunueriG"o, uvi"ijulb]"-'" "o AND MiS.Bhaqya Est;lters; Ventures pVT L,TD , Rep. by its Ali Ashar, S/o. Mohammed Lehry, havino rts r,rciljrerert omceaiT_5_as)6i; tiuii;ir."de, LJnit_.3, 1st Ftoor MG Road, Sec urrctt-.]-rrbad. ...petitioner/petitiorrers/plaintiffs 1A NO: 1 OF 2018 ... RespondenURespo nde nUDefendant Petition un rerr '3ection cpc praying that in the circ,mst,lnces stated in the,affid.avit fiterd i1 3.1pp61 of the peiitio;, in" Uign Court may be pleased to stay all further pr.ce,-'c iros in o.s.No.21l2oos o" ihu fire of the cor. rt of the Xrv .ucr5y,:, Ranga Reddy oLt,i"i'ri'L.a.ruasa, p"niins iil6i,ir A:ilg;l"iflffitricr .151 . CIVIL REVIS ION PETI IION NO: 4206 0F 2018:. Petition Under r\rir;re 227 0f the constitution of rndia against the order dated 13-04-2018 passerj in I.,A.No.375/201a in o.s.r.ro.zrJ2009 0n the f,re oi the court of XIV Additionat District i:rct Sessions LrOge, nang; R"iOy Oi.tri.irt L ; N;;;" . Between : 1 M/s.Narne Estrte*; pvt I trl ffsp. by its Chairman and Managing l.)irector, Col. about Z.r years. Occ Ransa Rao N,rrrrr: (Retrt) 'Sto."Laie'r.rV.lHij;,ruet Business, oFfice ?r No.r cunrocr< En.iirl, dJiiloliJora. M/s. Gomedrer E.s,tates Pvr . Ltd., Rep_by its Director,Goku, Nan.e, S/o. Col. Ranga Rao ht.lrre'Retct) ninor,' ag-# a'b"rtZ,i"v"Iii, Ccc Bus ness, office at 1 cunrock En:til )e, Sftund;Aba"d, Hy;;;;b;l*'" ... petitioner/petitione rs/plaintiffs 2 AND M/S.Bhaaya Estitt(js \'€)ntures-pW.LTD., Rep. by its Ali Ashar, Sio. fu,ohammed k"J hity SB"L:,r,- gli lf o omce ni zI_+6)EI, il"iiii ?*,oe u n t_ r J ; .i Fffi,." , CIVIL REvtsro N PETITIO N NO: 2E00 oF 2018 : ...RespondenURespondenUDefendant Petition Under Arricre 227 of the constitution of rndia against the order dated 13-04-2018 Passed in r.A.No.439i2018 in o.s.No.21 r2oo9 on the fire of the court of XIV Additionar District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at r-.g.Naga,1 Between : - '

1. M/s.Narne Estates pvt !1g.,Iup, by its Chairman and Managing Director, Col. Ranga Rao Name (Retd), S/o. Laie N.V. r.laiJu, ngeo io"il"z+ v6ii".,, dt" Business, Office at No. 1 6un rock Enciave, S-Ec]rnoera uaO. 2 M/s' Gornedha Estates pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its Director,Gokur Name, s/o. cor. i'bort Zi y"rrs, Occ Business, Office Rangla Rao Name (Retd), UinOu,'ag€iO at 1 Gunrock Enclave, S6cunderaba"d, HVOeiiUaO] AND M/S.Bhagya Estates Ventureg pVT.LTD., Rep. by its Ali Ashar, S/o. Mohammed Letrry, having its registered ornce At z1-+sis!, rr,ir'iiii nr"rde. Unit-13, 1st Froor MG Road, Secunde bad. ...Petitioners/Defendants .. RespondenUPlaintiff IANO:1O F 2018 Petition under Section 1sl cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affid.avit filed in support of the peiition, it e Uigf, Court may O" p[r."0 t" furth.er proceedings in os.No.2112009 on the fire of the court of the xrv :t?Y..?ll Additional District and Sessions Judge,RR District at LB Nagar pending th;-cRp before this Hon'ble court. Counsel for the Petitioner in all CRps Counsel for the Respondent in all CRps : Mr.Avinash Desai, appearing on : Sri B.Raveendra Babu behalf of Mirza Safiulla Baig The Court made the following : COMMON ORDER * t1 ( THE HoNOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI (:IVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4195 of 2018 CIVIL REVIS ION PETITION No. 2861 of 2018 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4206 of 20'18 AND C lVlL REVISION PETITION No. 2800 of 2018 COMMON ORDER: I hav'e I erard Mr.B.Ravindra Babu, learned counse for the revision petiticners and Mr. Avinash Desai, learaed Senior Counsel app,3aring on behalf of [\Ir.Mirza Safiulla Baig, Iearned counsel on recc)rd for the respondent. 2- As tlre, re.vision petitions are interconnected and pt:rtain to impugnecl orck:rs arising from interlocutory applications fil€,d in the same suit--l:r S No 21 of 2009 on the file of the Xlr./ Ar:ditional District Judgr,=, Ranga Reddy District-they have been heard together and are being disposed of through this common c,rder.

3. C.Fl.[] I'Jo 4195 of 2018 is filed under Article 22,;' of the Constitution o'' lndia, challenging the order datecJ 13.04.:2018 in l.A. No. 440 of 2018, passed under Order XIV Rule li CPC, wherein ther pelitioners prayed for framing of additiona issrres. #

4. C.Fl.|) 2861 of 2018, also filed under Arlicle 227, challenges thr order dated 13.04.2018 in l.A. No. 374 cf 2018, passed uncler S;ection f Si CpC. The petition sought reopr,lning of the case kr fil-" additional documents, framing ol furher issues, and recall of [)i/y's. 1 and 2. , 2 NTR,,] CRP5_4195,2861,4206 & 2800-2018 '!

5. C.R.P. No. 4206 of 20,1g is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated j3.04 2018 in l.A. No. 375 of 2018, passed under Order XVlll Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking recall of pWs. 1 and 2 tor further cross_ examination.

6. C.R.P. No. 2800 of 2018 challenges the order in l.A. No. 439 of 2018, dated 13.04.2018, passed under Order Xl Rule 14 CPC, wherein the petitioners sought production of the original of cheque Ex.B-l by the plaintiff.

7. The original suit was filed by the respondenUplaintiff seeking specific performance of an oral agreement of sale dated 06.01.2006, concerning the suit schedule property. At the stage of final arguments, the defendants filed the above_mentioned interlocutory applications seeking reopening of the matter, framing of additional issues, recalling of pWs. 1 and 2 for further cross-examination, and a direction for production of the original cheque (Ex B-1) The trial Court, upon consideration of the merits, dismissed all applications via separate orders dated 13.04.201g. Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present revision petitions.

8. lVleanwhile, the defendants had also filed a petition under Order Vll Rule 'l1(a) and (Q CpC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of lack of cause of action and limitation. Upon dismissal, the defendants filed a revision petition, which was allowed by this Court, resulting in rejection of the plaint. 17 3 NTR,,] CRPS,l195.;lE61,'10' & 2800-2018 Consequently the present revisions were dismisr';ed as infructuous on )-3.07 .2021. Howeve r. the said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme ()o.id in Civil Appeal No. 4570 of 2023. The Apex Court, by its orrJe'r Cated '1 1.09.2024, set aside the High C:our':'s order and direr:tclcl the trial Court to adjudicate the suit on merills within three monll-r; from the date of submission of a certified copy of the judgment Additionally, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to he;ar :he revision petitions on merits, granting liberty to the parties tct file necessary applications. Accordingly', upon such applicatior itte earlier dismissal order was set aside and the revisions v;et'c restored for hearing.

9. Learnetc oounsel for the revision petitioners/delendants contends; that the trial Court failed to properly exe'cise its jurisdictior" n 1'raming issues based on the rival pleadings. lt is submitted trat although the defendants admitled llhe oral agreemenl, hey disputed the rate of consideration. The case of the defenrjartr; is lhat the agreed rate was Rs.8,C0,C00/- per acre, and that the plaintiff initially paid Rs. 12'00,0001, followed by issuan,:e cf Ex.B-l (cheque) for Rs. 3,80,000/- towirrds the balance cr:nsideration. Later, citing financial inability, tht: plaintiff retrieveil the, c;heque, and obtained a sale deed on the basis of book value .e., Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, causing losr; to the defendants The defendants submit that to establish the actual agreed consideratiol ,rf Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre, the chequer Ex B-1 is a vital piecer o1 evidence. Hence, framing of additional ir;sues is 4 NTR,J CRPS,4195,2851,4206 & 2800 2018 .l crucial for complete adjudication. Recalling the plaintiff witnesses and production of the original cheque are necessary to substantiate their defence. It is argued that even though the petitions were filed belatedly and may lack complete particulars, they were essential in the interest of justice. The trial Court, in their view, committed an error in refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, they urge this Court to allow the revisions and direct the trial Court to provide limited opportunity with a time- bound schedule. ln support, the learned counsel cited: . Finolex Cables Ltd. v. Finolux Auto Pvt. Lfd, 2OO7 SCC Online Del 971, . y.S. Ramakishnan v. P.M. Muhammed Ali, 2022 SCC Online SC 1545, . Easf Point Education Society & Another v. Mohinder Singh & Others,2024 SCC Online Del 5733. '10. ln response, learned Senior Counsel for the respondenUplaintiff contends that the interlocutory applications were filed at an advanced stage of the trial with the sole intent of delaying proceedings. The repetitive filing of such applications, particularly during final arguments, reflects an abuse of process. The Senior Counsel submits that the trial Court had already considered the necessity of additional issues and held that existing issues adequately encompass all disputed aspects. Consequently, the framing of additional issues is unwarranted. The applications seeking to reopen and recall witnesses are ,.1 5 NTR,.] CRPS 1195.2[61.4i]0 & 2800 2018 ancillary ar(j, given that the defendants had ample optr:ortunity during trial srch relief is now unnecessary. It s further submitted that the trial Court dismisr;ed the applications urith well-reasoned findings. Additional y, the defendants hecl earlier admitted in their counter that the original cheque (Ex.!i'1) had been destroyed, which was ;also recorded in the impugneC order. Seeking a direction for its produ,:tion in revision prrocr:,:dings undermines their credibility. Above all. the revisions have been filed under Arlickt 227 oI the Constrtutrc,n of lndia, which grants this Court limited supervisorl,' jur sdiction. lt is not a forum for re-appreciation of facts or subslilrrtion of another view. No grounds have been made out by the ;:e':iiicners for exercise of supervisory jurisdictiorr under Arlicle 2iL7. r\ccordingly, the revisions are devoid of mr:lrit and Iiable to be disnrissed.

11. I have cc,nsidered the submissions of the learrred :>ounsel and perused I lre materials on record.

12. Points lc,r Determination Whether the trial Court r:rrred in the proper e >:errcise of its jurisdiction while disposing of the petitions seek in,l to: a) Rr:crast the issues, b) Reooen the suit, c) P\Us; 1 and 2 for further cross-examination, and d) Direr,:: production of the original of cheque marked as l}r:.11,- 1? ,\ 6 NTR.J CRPS_4195,2861,4206 & 2800-2018 Il e) Whether the impugned orders challenged in these revision petitions are sustainable in law and on facts? '13. At the outset, under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, this Court has limited supervisory jurisdiction. The scope under this provision does not permit re-appreciation of facts or substitution of another view unless there is manifest miscarriage of justice and the Court below failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction or commit jurisdictional errors so as to ensure the administration of justice in alignment with the legal standards.

14. lt is pertinent to note that all the interlocutory applications were filed at the stage of final arguments-that is, after the conclusion of the trial. According to the defendants, it was during the preparation for arguments that they realized certain crucial lapses. namely, the omission to frame appropriate issues regarding the agreed sale consideration per acre and the failure to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses on this aspect, as well as the non-production of the original cheque (Exhibit B-1).

15. ln this context the aspect for consideration should be whether the reliefs sought in the interlocutory petitions are justifiable, and whether the trial court should have exercised its discretion to permit such applications in the interest of justice.

16. Since the reopening of the suit would be a direct consequence of the acceptance of the applications seeking (i) recasting of issues, (ii) recalling of witnesses PWs.'l and 2 for 7 NTR,J cRPs .,195,286r <l0r & 2800 2018 further crc,ss -examination, and (iii) production of the original cheque r Ex 13- 1). it is appropriate to consider each at;pect in sequential c nJ er.

17. In the present matter, the petitioners filed an application under Order )llV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking the framing o1 additional issues as outlined in their petition. For ease of reference, the proposed issues (a) to (f) are reproduced below: (a) Whether the alleged oral agreement, claimed to con:,;titute a binding cont.;act between the two companies, is true, :orrr:rct, and legally enfcrrceable? (b) Whethe,r ll',er specific terms, conditions, and alleged virtlations of the oral agreement, as claimed by the plaintiff, are true and correct? (c) Whether, rr light of the facts and circumstances pleadeC in the written statenr,:rt, the alleged oral agreement stands cancelled or terminated du,e r to subsequent conduct or: variations? (d) Whether the plaintiff has established that the agretrd sale consideratir:n vrras Rs. 2,00,000/- per acre, as oppc,sed to Rs. 8,00,000/- as; contended by the defendants? (e) Whefhc.r the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of r;pecific performance clespite alleged suppression of material far:ls and conduct as dertailed in the written statement? 8 Nl}<.1 CRPS_4195,2861,4206 & 2800 2ora Ri\ (t) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? lssues already framed by the Trial Court are (1) Whether the plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale with the defendants as stated in the plaint? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entifled to a decree for specific performance of the agreement of sale as prayed for?

18. ln the impugned order, the Trial Court observed that proposed issues (a) to (d) are subsumed within lssue No. 1, while lssue (e) is encapsulated within lssue No. 2. Regarding lssue (f), the Trial Court noted that the defence of limitation had not been explicitly raised in the written statement, thus rendering it unnecessary to frame a distinct issue on that point.

19. lt is well-established that in civil litigation, the purpose of framing issues is to precisely identify the material points of contention between the parties, based on their respective pleadings. These issues guide the evidentiary process and streamline the adjudication by focusing on the real controversies requiring judicial determination.

20. ln the present case, a plain reading of the two issues framed by the Trial Court reveals that they broadly encompass the existence of a sale agreement and, contingent upon its establishment, the entitlement to specific relief. Naturally, these broad issues would allow for inquiry into the terms of the agreement, compliance, consideration, and possible termination $ 9 NTR,J cRPs.195.28r1.420t t 2800 2018 or variatior. -l-.re Trial Court's finding regarding limitatton i:lppears reasonable, pzrrticularly as the written statement did nt>t ra se it as a substanti've ,i efence warranting a separate issue.

21. Althoulth the issues framed by the Trial Court are broadly worded, there is no apparent legal infirmity in its c;onclusions. Nonethelesrs, :his Court is of the view that framing more specific issues, as r.rcposed by the petitioners, would aid in a more nuanced and t:ffective adjudication of the dispute.

22. Accor,lirtgly, while the impugned order does not warrant interferenc,;', lhe revision petition is disposed of with a tlirection that the l-riat Court, at the time of final adjudication, sltalt tonsider the aspects raised in the petition, provided that such lssles are supporte,l bv tegally admissible evidence adducecl by the ,:tafties. Req2gl-the suit and recall o or furtherr cross- examinatio! The petitioners have filed applications seeking reopening ,r" tre suit and recall of PWs.'l and 2 for the pu'pose of further cross-t><amination. Under Order XVlll Rule 17 of tle Code of Civil Prr:o=dure, the Court possesses the discretion jo recall and exanrint., irny witness at any stage of the proceedingr; if such examination is; deemed necessary. However, it is a well- established p-inciple that this provision is intended to ]'acilitate clarificatior o1 evidence already on record, and nol to allow a party to fill lrlcunae or omissions in its case. However. once a witness is recalled, the Court may, in its discretron, perrnit both sides to re-e>lamine or cross-examine the witness (':-d,rl --r- 10 NTR] CRPS,4195,2861,4206 & 28OO-2018 .t- \ \l --"-{ l

23. To note, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vemekar (Dead) through LRs v. Sharad Chard prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410, the triat Court may permit recall of a witness even at an advanced stage of the trial-such as when the matter is reserved for judgment-if the additional evidence is material and has a bearing on the ultimate adjudication of the suit and prejudice is not ground for exercising of power by the court.

24. In the present case, the petitioners contend that certain significant aspects such as the agreed sale consideration per acre and the allied aspects were inadvertenfly left unaddressed during the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2. These facts, as per the petitioner, are necessary for a proper and complete adjudication of the dispute, particularly since the suit is based on an oral agreement, where oral testimony is central to proving the existence, terms, and enforceability of the alleged contract.

25. Given that pleadings and prior depositions are already on record, further cross-examination confined to clarification of key material points may substantially aid the Court in arriving at a just decision. Therefore, permitting further questioning of the witnesses for eliciting material facts, in a case of this nature, would be reasonable.

26. ln this setting, though the suit dates back to the year 2009 and has remained pending for various reasons, the petitioner has pleaded that the omission in cross-examination occurred due to inadvertence and that the overlooked line of questioning is 11 ]\.tR,l cRPs .195,2811.-1:0( & 2800 2018 materiallv $i,Jrrificant. As the suit is still before the priman,'forum, i.e., the tr al court, dismissal of the applications solely on the ground of rlelit,/ or prejudice would be contrary tc the interrests of justice. Allr:wirrg further cross-examination does not preju'Jice the respondent in any substantive way, aside frcm causing inconveniencer or procedural delay. Further, afford ng the petitioner err c,pportunity for full cross-examination wor-rld t:ring the entirety rlf tl're dispute before the Court in a structured manner and may' pro,/ent a miscarriage of justice' On this groLlnd, this Court is of the considered opinion that granting one opportunity to the petitiorren; by reopening and recalling the witnesse:;/PWs 1 and 2 would sub serve the justice.

27. Noneth,lless, reopening the suit and recalling 'ivitnr,rsses at the advancecl stage of proceedings does place an additional burden or ll'er witnesses, who have already riischarg'ed their obligations, pursuant to summons. Under Section 3li CPC, awarding 'r1' rnsts lies within the discretion of the Oourt and is governerl b)' the principle that the party causing the 'lelay or inconvenieint:e must bear its consequences. Therefore, when a party seek.s irtdulgence to reintroduce witnesses at :r lale stage, costs sen;e as an equitable balancing mechanism l)etween procedural lairness and substantive justice.

28. ln li,ght of the above, this Court finds.merit in the present HIr';I:,::::;::',;:":,i#:':,2"::i:::"',il';: -:"+ t. s 72 NTR,J cRPs 4195,285r,4206 & 2800 2018 {i: PWs.l and 2 for fufther cross-examination are allowed, subject to the fol lowi ng condition s ; (a) The petitioner/defendant shall pay cosfs of Rs.10,000/- each to pWs.1 and 2 as compensatory costs for their recall and for further cross examination as scheduled by coutt. (b) The scope of futther cross-examination shalt be strictly confined to material facls as pleaded in the plaint and witten statement and the facts previously adduced by the witnesses/PWs.1 and 2, in their respective examination-in-chief (c) The Tial Court shalt schedule the recatt and cross_ examination of the said wifnesses within fifteen (1 S) days from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner/defendant shall stricfly adhere to the schedule. (d) Given the exceptional indulgence being extended, failure to complete the cross-examination on the scheduled date shall render the petitioner/defendant tiabte to pay Rs.10,000/- per witness per adjournment as further costs.

29. Praver for production of the oriq inal of cheq ue/Ex.B-1: ln regard lo the petition requesting a direction to produce the cheque bearing No.429345/Ex.p-1 dated 10.12.2005, the stand of the respondent is that the cheque haseeen destroyed and in the impugned order the Court below has observed that in view of the submission even if the petition i9attoweO production of lhe document would be impossibility. During hearing, this position has 13 NTR, ] CRP5 419t,2861,1206 & 2800 2018 \ - I t been reiterated hy the learned Senior Counsel. ConsirJerirg this factual posinion and as the trial Court is expected to reach appropriab corrr;lusions basing on the other tenable m aterial evidence hrroullrt on to record by the parties, this cou't firrds no cogent grourrd rs found to interfere with the impugned order For this reason tn z impugned order is deserves to be etnd is accordi n g ly i,ttf ; r nt ed

30. ln the re:s.tlt (a) C.R.P. Ns.,_!195 of 2018, which challenges the order of the Trial Court on the petition seeking the framing of adcitional issues, is clisposed of with the direction that, the Trial C o L-rr.l shall, at the stage of final adjudication, co rsider the issues rais rxl in the said petition, provided that such ssues are supported cy legally admissible evidence duly adduced lry the parties durlnq tl-er course of trial. (b) C.R.P. No_9._2t61_@,?06_s!2.91_8, which assail the order of the Trial Corrrt trjecting the petitions for reopening the case, are allowed in pa,1 to the extent of permitting the recall of PWs 1 and !, for the prrrt)ose of further cross-examination, subject to the following corrd itions:

1. The petitioner/defendant shall pay a sum of Rs 1Cr,000/- each t,: [)i/y's 1 and 2 as compensatory costs, for their recall and fcr u ndergoing further cross-examination as p,:)r the schedrrle, fixed by the Trial Court.

2. The scop er of further cross-examination shall be r,;trictly limited tc : ,& r" t4 N]R,J cRPs 4195,2861,4206 & 2aO0 20lE A ! " Material facts specifically pleaded in the plaint and written statement, and o Facts previously deposed by the witnesses (pWs 1 and 2) during their examination-in-chief.

3. The Trial Court shall schedule the recall and cross_ examination of the said witnesses within fifteen (i5) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner/defendant is directed to comply stricfly with the schedule so fixed.

4. Considering the exceptional indulgence granted by this Court, any failure on the part of the petitioner/defendant to complete the cross-examination on the scheduled date shall render them liable to pay additional costs of Rs. '10,000/- per witness, per adjournment. (c) C.R.P. No. 2800 of 20i8, which challenges the Trial Court,s order on the petition seeking production of the original of cheque marked as Ex.B-1 by the plaintiff, is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. A.V,S.PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER L.B.Nagar. 1 The XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, R 2. One CC to Sri B.Raveendra Babu, Advocate tOpUCI 3. One CC to Sri Miza Safiulla Baig, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies Svs/ps,M ga Reddy District at HIGH COURT DATED:181061:2025 f1=';,f' k i14 14. a< ) .) .<\ \\ r,l 2 E .lu|ll 2m iiiL tt !- .,1 <\.' ,'/ -,- r../ COMMON ORDER CRP.No.4195,:2861 ,4206 AND 2800 OF 2018 DISPOSING OF THE CRP NO.4195 OF 2018 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRP NO.2861 AND 4206 0F 2018 DISMISSING'I'HE CRP NO.28OO OF 2018 o{ b7 1[\ii'