The High Court · 2025

Revision Petitione6 / Plaintiffs 3, 5 to I AND

1. Bollam Ananda Rao (Died as Per LRs) 2. Sadiram Mariyamma (.Died) 3. Sadiram Sadananadam, S/o. Late Durgaiah, Aged about45 years, 4. Sadiram Mahendra, S/o. Late Durgaiah, Aged about 40 years, 5. Sadiram Dayanandam, S/o. Late Durgaiah, Aged about 36 years, 6. Sadiram Sampath, S/o. Late Durgaiah, Aged about 31 years, 7. Sadiram Devendra, S/o. Late Durgaiah, Aged about 27 years, 8. Sadiram Narendra Kumari, D/o. Late Durgaiah, Aged about 23 years Respofldents 1 to I Ri/o.H.no.3-15-209, Peddammagadda, Hanumakonda Warangyal

9. Nishanirm Yamini Shobha Vani, W/o. Sri Gururaj, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Medical Officer, R/o. H.No. 3-15-127, Peddammagaddd, Hanamkonda' Waranglal District.

10. Bollam Komala, W/o. Late Ananda Rao, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Housevrife, 1 1. Bollam Nanda Kishore,, S/o. Late Ananda Rao, Aged about 30 years' Occ: Student.

12. Bollam Deepak Kiran, S/o: Late Ananda Rao, Aged about 28 years' Occ: Studenl. Respondents 1O to 12 R/o. H.No.3-15-130, Peddammagadda, Hanamkonda' Warangal District ...Respondents, Defendants I to 12

13. Perla Komuraiah (Died as per LRs)

14. Perla Kumaraswamy (Died as per LRs) 15. Perla Surya Rao, S/o. Late Komuraiah, Aged .about 43 years, Occ Business, H.No. 3-'l-5-1 1 1, Peddammagadda, Hanmakonda.

16. Perla @ Velide Ramya,, W/o. V.Rajesh, D/o. Lalq Perla{umaraswamy,.Aged about 5' years, Occi Govt. Employbe, H.No. 3-1 5-1 1 1, Peddammagadda' Hanmakonda.

17.Peda Soujanya,, Wo. Late Chaitanya, D/o.. !{e fq{a (qmaraswamy' Aged about 3:i yeais, Occ: Pvt. Employeri, Rl/o. H.No. $'15-1 1 1, Peddammagadda, Hanmakonda.

18. Perla alias Mekala Navya, Wo. M.Pavan, Aged about 32 years,. Occ: Pvt. Employere. Rio. H.No. 3-15-1 11, Peddammagadda, Hanmakonda (Respondents 13 to 18 are not ne@ssary parties to the CRP) R*pondents , Plaintiffs No.l ,2,4 and I to 16 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pursuant to the Docket Order dated 151712025 in OS No. 114 of 2022 (Old No. 143 ot 2012) on the file of Prl. District Judge, Hanmakonda pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri G. Ramakrishna, learned Counsel representing Sri Srikanth Hariharan Counsel for the Respondents 3 TO 8: Sri Bomineni Vivekananda The Gourt made the following Order:- HON'BLB SRI K. LAKSHMAN, ORDER Hearcl Sri G.Ramakrishna, learned counsel representing Sri Srikanth Flariharan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bomineni Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 8. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.9 to 12

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the docket order dated 15.07.2025 passed in O.S.No.114 of 2022 (old O.S.No. 143 ,rf, 20 I 2) by the Principal District Judge at Hanumakonda.

3. l-hc pctitioncrs are plaintiff'Nos.3 and 5 to 9 in O.S.No.ll4 of 2022 (old O.S.No.l43 of 2012) filed by them for declaration and perpetual ir{trnction.'l'he suit is posted fortrial. DefendantNo.l0 has filed affidavit in lieu of'examination in chief as D.W.l. Whereas, learned trail (lourt has appointed an Advocate Commissioner to record cross-exarninlt.ion of'D.W.l. Learned Advocate - Commissioner has filed report sratinq that tlie cross-cxarnination of D.W.l could not be cornpleted a:; hc statcd that plaintiff No.3 raised objection for conl.irruation ol' the cross-cxarnination of D.W.l and requested to !iF-r-* 2 continue cross-examination in the Court. l:earned Advocate- Commissioner has stated that there was frequent interftrence and disturbance by the plaintiff No.3 though the counsel is present and therefore, he could not complete cross-examination of D.w.t.

4. The said fact was brought to the notice of the trial Court and vide docket order dated 15.07.2025, learned trial Court observed that once the Advocate Commissioner is appointed by the Cotfi, he shall execute the warrant and file report. Parties cannot take right on the proceedings of the Commissioner and if the same is allowed, the very object of the provision in the CPC for recording the evidence by rhe Comrnissioner would be defeated. The plaintiff No.3 was advised to cooperate with the Commissioner and see that the evidence of D.W.l is recorded without any disturbance by the plaintiff No.3. [n case, ir is required, the evidence can be recorded in the presence of the counsel for the plaintiff and keep the plaintiff No.3 away from the place of recording of evidence. Only to give a fair chance to the plaintiff to cornplete the cross-examination, this opportunity is being given. tf the attitude of the plaintiff No.3 continues the same, on frling o[report o[ the Commissioner, the Court will treat that there is no cross- J examination on the plaintifT side. The matter is adjoumed to 3r.07.2025.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitionerVplaintiffNos'3,S to 9 filed th,: present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Sri G.Ramakrishna, learned counsel appearing for petitioners would contt:nd that to avoid the said disturbance, a direction may be given to trierl Court to rccord cross-examination of D'W'1 in the open court by thc Trial court. with regard to other witnesses on defendants side, let the trial Court take a decision either to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner or to record their evidence in the open Court'

7. In the aloresaid lhcts. t'nore particularly, the report of the Advocate-commissioner $,ould reveal that there is disturbance and interference frorn plaintitl' No-3 while Advocate-Commissioner recording ctoss-exatnittation ot' I).W.t. The impugrred docket order would also reveal the said tact. -[herefore, in the given circumstances, it is not pr,rper to rccord the cross-examination of D.W.l by the Advocate {lornrnissioncr. I Ic has already expressed his inability in recording cross-examination ol I).W.1. Thus, there is loss of confidence ,:l' Advocatc Conturissioner on plaintiff No'3 and vr:ce versa. 4

8. [n the light of the same, considering the, report of the Commissioner, cross-examination of D.w.l was done in part and posted for further cross-examination, this Civit Revision Petition is disposed of directing the learned Principal District Judge, at Hanumakonda to record further cross-examination of D.W.l in the open Court. The suit is of the year 2012. Therefore, learned principal District Judge, at Hanumakonda, shall dispose of the said suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. The petitioners herein/plaintiff Nos.3, 5 to 9 shall cooperate with the trial Court in completing further cross-examination of D.W.1 and also in deciding the said suit in all respects. At the same time, respondent Nos.3 to 8 and 9 to 12, 15 to 18 shall also cooperate with the trial court in disposal of the said suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY" To,

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Hanurnakonda 2. One CC to Sri Srikanth Hariharan, Advocate [Opt-lC] c eatce ia gti Boalae.el yivel<aqea4ar, Ad vocaf= Coeucj OFFICER f--+-.s

4. Two CD Copies VC/PSL &Ka HIGH COURT DATED:1210812025 I ) ORDER CRP.No.l2536 of 2025 I I STA c) (J 2 3 JA}l 2026 * l';.t'i' DISPOSING OF THE CRP i (.,.