The High Court · 2025

..RespondenURespondenUPlaintiff lA NO: 1OF 2025 petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings'in O.S.No.t+O of 2016 on the file of the XIX Additional Senior Civii Juage, Ciy Civil Court at Secunderabad pending disposal of the main revision in the interest of justice. Counselfor the Petitioners:SRl M RAMA RAO Counset for the Respondent: SRI S MALLA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER ! l i ,j J IN THE IIIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ]]ELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P.No.3038 OF 2025 t2.12.2025 Between: P.Prameela & another And M/s Manohar Constructions, Rep. by Manohar Rao . . . Petitioners ...Respondent ORDER, Heard Mr. M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S.N4alla Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The instant civil revision petition is one which has been filed assailing the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the learned Il[-Additional Senior Civil Judge (FAC Ix-Addirional Senior Civil Judge), City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.95;5 of 2024 in O.S.No.140 of 2016. 2

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the civil revision petition are that the petitioners herein are the defendants before the trial Court in the suit. The respondent herein, who is plaintif,f, had filed the suit for recovery against the petitioners herein for an amount of Rs.8,06,000/-, being the amount which was admittedly paid as a refundable security deposit for giving property for development by the petitioners.

4. The suit is one which was filed in the year 2016. After much prolonged proceedings being drawn, the suit finally canle up for final arguments since 22.02.2024, on which date the plaintiffs argument was concluded and defendants' arguments could not be completed and they have been filing IAs after IAs. On some pretext or the other, the arguments could not be completed. Finally, the present IA was filed on 10.12.2024 which now stands decided on

24.03.2025 and the present civil revision petition was one which was filed in July, 2025.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that I.A.No.95 5 of 2025 filed by the petitioners was seeking permission rti F=Z / ,;l 3 to file additional written statement. He submits that certain subsequent developments that transpired were intended to be brought on record, like for instance, the properly given for development by the plaintiff was being dqveloped beyond the sanctionecl plan. Secondly, there was some corlsurner dispute which was raised between the parties, all of which, therefore, were necessary to be brought before the trial Court and, therefore, they prayed for filing the additional written statement rvhrch was refused by the trial court by the impugned order, leading to filing of the instant civil revision petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners subrnits that apart liom not considering the fact that no prejudice would have been caused to either of the parties and also the fact that the petitioners have supported their contention citing various judgrrrents but none of which \ /ere considered by the trial court, the inrpugned order deserves to be interfered with and allowing by the IA the matter needs to be proceeded in accordance with law. 4

7. However, perusal of the records would go to show that from the very beginning itself the conduct of the petitioners/defendants was not in deciding the matter at the earliest rather they had been adopting a practice of getting the matter protracted repeatedly on one ground or the other. The perusal of the impugned order itself would go to show that from the first instance, the petitioners have been protracting the matter in cross-examining the plaintiff and thereafter they ensured deferment of their evidence for a substantial period of time. Finally, the evidence of the petitioners was also closed on 14.03.2019 and the matter was posted for arguments on

01.04.2019. The petitioners thereafter filed another IA for reopening of their evidence, which too was allowed on 01 .04.2019 on condition that in the event if the petitioners do not enter appearance for evidence, their evidence shall be recorded as 'nil'. The petitioners ensured that the chief-affidavit of D.W.1 is filed. However, they along with chief-affidavit filed yet another IA seeking for receiving of certain documents which too stood dismissed on 19.02.2020 and yet the petitioners were not willing to subject themselves to cross-examination. Finally, on 12.07.2022 5 even after imposing costs, couple of adjournments were granted and thereafter an Advocate-commissioner was appointed and D.W.l was cross-examined and his evidence w&s rolosed and since he did not. intend to lead any further evidence, the matter stood posted for arguments on 29.01.2024 onwards. In between, a few IAs were again filed by the petitioners which too got dismissed and finally this IA for additional written statement was filed which now \ stands decided. B. At the outset, this court is of the firm view that no strong case has been made out calling for interference on the grounds that, firstly the order is a well reasoned order showing the conduct of the petitionersidefendants who were not keen in conclusion of the proceedings. secondly, for the reason that the grounds the petitioners want to bring on record by way of additional written statement 'would not have any bearing to the substantive relief sought in the plaint. Thirdly, there is no substantial material shown by the petitioners as to why the petitioners could not move such a petition earlier when things were all within the knowledge that they intended to bring by way of additional written statement. 6

9. [n view of the same, this court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioners/defendants.

10. The civil revision petition, accordingly, stands rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. I/TRUE COPYI S MALLIKARJUNA RAO, ASSISTANT REGISTRARc SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad 2. One CC to SRI M RAMA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRI S MALLA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] . 4. Two CD Copies t.^ Wor* / ? I HIGH COURT DATED i1211212A25 ORDER CRP.No.3038 of 2025 REJECTING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 1 l1/ b