The High Court · 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.141 of 2016 on the file of the XIX Additional Senior Civit Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad pending disposal of the main revision. Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl M RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent : SRI S MALLA RAO The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P.No.3048 OF 2025

12.12.2025 Between: P.Ravi Narayan And M/s Manotrar Constructions, Rep. by Mir.nohar Rao ...Petitioner Respondent ORDER, Heard Mr. M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.lVlalla Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. perusecl 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 IIl-Additional Senior Civil Judge (FAC IX-Additional Senior Civil Judge), City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.95 6 of 2024 in O.S.No.141 of 2016. 2

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the civil revision petition are that the petitioner herein is the defendant before the trial Court in the suit. The respondent herein, who is plaintifl had filed the suit for recovery against the petitioner herein for an amount of Rs.6,62,0001-, being the amount which was admittedly paid as a refundable security deposit for giving property for development by the petitioner.

4. The suit is one which was filed in the year 2016. After much prolonged proceedings being drawn, the suit finally came up for final arguments since 05.03.2024, on which date the plaintiff s 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 petitioner submits that I.A.No.956 of 2025 filed by the petitioner was seeking pennission l l I 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 property given for development by the plaintiff was being developed beyond the sanctioned plan. Secondly, there was some consumer dispute which was raised between the parties, all of which, therefore, were necessary to be brought before the trial Court and, therefore, they prayed fbr filing the additional written statement which was reflused by, the trial Llourt by the impugned order, leading tc, filing of the instant civil revision petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that apart from not considering the fact that no prejudice would have been caused to either of the parties and also the fact that the petitioner has supported her contention citing various judgments but none of which were r:onsidered by the trial Court, the impugned 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 petitioner/defendant was not in deciding the matter at the earliest rather he had been adopting a practice of getting the matter protraited repeatedly on one ground or the other. The perusal of the impugned order itself would go to show that from the first instance, the petitioner has been protracting the matter in cross-examining the plaintiff and thereafter they ensured defennent of their evidence for a substantial period of time. Finally, the evidence of the petitioner was also closed on 14.03.2019 and the matter was posted for arguments on

01.04.2019. The petitioner thereafter filed another IA for reopening of her evidence, which too was allowed on 0l .04.2019 on condition that in the event if the petitioner does not enter appearance for evidence, her evidence shall be recorded as 'nil'. The petitioner ensured that the chief-affidavit of D.W.l is filed. However, they along with chief-affidavit filed yet another IA seeking for receiving of certain documents. Finally, on

12.07.2022 evenafter imposing costs, couple of adjoumments were granted and thereafter an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed 5 and D.W.l was cross-examined and his evidence was closed and since he did not intend to lead any further evidr:nce, the matter stood post,:d for arguments on 05.03 .2024 onwarcls. In between, a few IAs were again filed by the petitioner which too got dismissed and trnally this tA for additional written statement was filed which now stands decided.

8. At the outset, this Court is of the firm vieu, 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 petitioner/defendant who was not keen in conclusion of the proceedings. Secondly, for the reason that the grounds the petitioner want to bring on record by way of adclitional written statement would not have any bearing to the substantive relief sought in the plaint. Thirdly, there is no substantial rnaterial shown by the petitioner as to why the petitioner could not move such a petition earlier when things were all within the knowledge that he intended to bring by way of additional written statement.

9. In view of the same, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner/defendant. 5

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. //TRUE COPY/ S MALLIKARJUNA RAO, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad 2. One CC to SRI M RAMA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI S MALLA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] t,o 4. Two CD Copies Wor* t/ I I I i I i i I i I I I I I I I I I i i i i I i I : HIGH COURT DATED i12l,1212025 r' () .J t .\ S 1 6 []tt ?lfi 7a t{ ORDER CRP.No.3048 of 2025 REJECTING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS (, 4 \b v