SECTION OFFICER v. HIGH COURT

Petition under Section 151 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.142 of 2016 on the file of the XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad pending disposal of the main revision. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri M.Rama Rao Gounsel for the Respondent : Mr.S.Malla Rao The Court made the following : ORDER : .:: .-'::{ ' i-. i:r.r,. j -r;i"- IN THE HTGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TIIL,ANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P.No.3066 OF 2025

12.12.2025 Between: P.Prameela And IWs Manohar Constructions, Rep. by Manohar Rao Petitioner . . ..I(espondent ORDER: Heard Mr. M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.Matla Rao, leamed counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.

2. The instant civil revision petition is one which har; been filed assailing the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by tl-re learned Ill-Additional Senior Civil Judge (FAC Ix-Additional S'enior Civil Judge), City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.No.957 of 2024 in O.S.No. 142 of 2016. \i j Ik- 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 plaintiff, had filed the suit for recovery against the petitioners herein for an amount of Rs.7,27,425/-, 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 plaintiffs argument was concluded and defendants' arguments could not be completed and they have been filing lAs 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 t I.A.No.957 of'2025 filed by the petitioner was seeking permission Y I I 1 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 ptan. Secondly, there was some consunler dispute which was raised between the parties, all of which, therefore, were necessary to be brought before the trial Court and, ther:efore, tl"rey prayed for filing the additional written statement which'was refused by the trial Court by the impugned order, teading to filing of the instant civil revision Petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitr; that apart from not considering the fact that no prejudice would have been caused to either of the parties and also the fact that thre petitioner has supportecl her contention citing various judgments but none of which were considered by the trial Court, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with and allowing by the t/t' 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 she 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 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 uratter was posted for arguments on Ol.O4.2Olg. The petitioner thereafter filed another tA for reopening of her evidence, which too was allowed on 01.04.2019 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. t is filed. However, they along with chief-affidavit filed yet another IA seeking for receiving of certain documents. Finally, on

12.07 .2022 even after imposing costs, couple of adjournments were granted and thereafter an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I ! ; , , I( 5 t and D.W.l was cross-examined and his evidence was closed and since she did not intend to lead any further evidence. the matter stood posted lbr arguments on 05.03.2024 onwards. In between, a few tAs were again hled by the petitioner which too got dismissed and finally this IA for additional written statement vvas filed which now stands decided.

8. 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, firstty 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 additional written statement would not have any bearing to the substetntive relief sought in the plaint. Thirdly, there is no substantial rnat.erial shown by the petitioner as to why the petitioner could not ntove such a petition earlier when things were all within the knowledge that she intended to bring by way of additional written statemenl.. g. In view of the same, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner/defendant. 6

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. SD/. A SREENIVASA REDDY, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad One CC to SRl. tvl RAMA RAO Advocate [OPUC]

2. One CC to SRI S.Malla Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI tM.Rama Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4.Two CD Copies SVS W ^? € -- t / HIGH COURT DATED:1 211212025 ORDER CRP.No.3066 of 2A25 At () c) * S 1 6 0E[ 2025 * REJECTING THE CRP WITH OUT COSTS ( v