The High Court · 2025

7. Smt. Bhagya, D/o Late B. Bheem Rao, age 35 years, Occ- Household, R/o Khanapur Presently R/o H.No. 1-1-3BSlN5l2, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. B. Nalla Srinivas, S/o Sakharam, aged about 40 years, Occ- Business R/o Opp- M.P.P.Primary School, Raj eevnagar, Khanapur, Dis! Nirmal.

9. Basa Santhosh, S/o Ra.jeshwar, aged about 37 years, Occ- Agriculture R/o Bavapur (R) RajuraKhanapur Mandal, Dis!.Nirmal

10. Smt. B Jayasheela, Wo Linganna, aged about years. Occ- Household, R/o. Bavapur (R) RajuraKhanapur Mandal, Dist- Nirmal 11 Smt. Shetti Bharathi, Wo Rajeshwar, aged about 48 yeas,Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No. 13-125, Rajeev Nagar, Colony, Post- Khanapur, Mandal- Khanapur, Dist- Nirmal. l2.Veeramalla Srinivas Rao, S/o Rajanna or Rajanna Patel, Aged about 60 years, Occ- Govt. Employee R/o Dharmaipet, Mandal- Kaddam, Dist Nirmal

13. Kudala Bhupathi, S/o Rajanna, aged about 66 years, Occ- Govt. Employee R/o Sathanoaly, Mandal- Khanapur, Dist- Nirmal.

14. Kudala Satyanarayana, S/o. Rajanna, aged about 49 years, Occ- Business, R/o Sathanpaly, Mandal- Khanapur, Dist- Nirmal

15. Smt. Kanne Shyamala, Wo Ganganna, aged about 41 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o Post- Bellal, Mandal- Kadam, Dist- Nirmal

16. Smt. YelkushiMallawa, Wo Venkatesh, i aged about 38 yeas, Occ- Agriculture, R/o H.No, 3-'104, Village and Post- Kalamadugu, Mandal- Jannaram, Dist. Mancherial. lT.Yelkushi Sathanna, S/o Rayamallu, aged about 36 years. Occ- Agriclture, Rio H.No.3-104, Village and Post- Kalamadugu, Mandal- Jannaram, Dist- Mancherial. lS.Chintapandu Rajeshwar Rao, S/o Meena Rao, aged about 60 years, Occ- RTC Driver R/o Village and Post- Surjapur village Khanapur Mandal, Dis! Nirmal.

19.Janga Venkatesh, Wo Jinga Venkatesh or Jinga Venkatesh S/o Buchanna aged 42 yrs Occ- Govt Employee R/o Chinna Billal, Kadam Mandal, Nellore Dist . (Respondenl No.1 and Respondent Nos.3 to 19 are not necessary parties to the present CRP) ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY of all further proceedings in O.S. No. 21 of 2O11 pending on the file of the Honble Senior Civil Judge, At Nirmal pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRl. NARESH REDDY CHINNOLLA Counsel for the Respondent No. 1, 3 to 19 : NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1744 of 2022 ORDER: This present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order, dated

14.06.2022, passed in I.A.No. 193 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2O 1 1 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal. 2 . | . Petitioner is the plaintiff and respondents are the defendants in the suit uide O.S.No.21 of 2011.

2.2. Petitioner has filed I.A.No.193 of 2022 under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w under Section 15 1 of Civil Procedure Code to recall the Dw1 lor further cross examination on his beha,lf.

2.3. It is mentioned in the cause title of the Civil Revision Petition that respondent Nos. 1, 3 to 19 are not necessary partles.

3. It is stated in the application in I.A.No.193 of 2022 that on 04.O4.2022 a memo was liled by the petitioner-plaintiff for examining of defendant No.2 as Dwl without there being any whisper of the evidence of defendant No.1. Since he hled a wrltten statement on his behalf r.r,ithout deciding the said I l i 2 \ **r ..1 ccntroversy the learned trial Cou-rt proceeded to complete the - examin ation of Dw' 1 (chief examina tion and cross examination). It is further stated that from thr: beginning, the defendants are not following the procedure for examination of the witness and at the time of examination of Drvl also it has been observed by the petitioner-plaintiff that after filing the chief afhdavit of Dwl, defendant Nos.8 tc 18 ar-e sailing with the co-defendants, who are alleged to have purchased the prcperty from defendant Nos.1 to 7. An-v- examination of Dwi on behalf of the defendant Nos.8 to 18 shall bc before the contesting party i.e., plaintiff. In this case, t he Du'1 was cxamined on 04.O4.2O22 and at thc time of cross examination of Dw1, thc cross examination on behalf of defendants Nos.8 tc 18 shall be recorded earlier, since thev are sailing w-ith the other defendant Nos. 1 to 7, then the cioss examination of the contesting party i.e., petitioner-plaintiff has to be done. The said procedure is not followed and prayed to rccall Dw 1 for further cross examination.

4. Respondent No.2 has filed his counter contending that the petitioner-plaintiff has not raised any objection and did not place the same before the learned trial Cor.rrt that the ./ '/ / I t I other defendants are sailing with Dwl. Hence, PraYed to dismiss the same

5. Learned tria-l Court after going through the affidavit of the petitioner-plaintiff and counter filed by respondent No.2 has dismissed the application, u,hich is impugned in the Civii Revision Petition, holding that the counsel for.the petitioner- plaintiff has cross examined Dw,1 after cross examination of defendant Nos.B to 18. Further, the cross examination of Dw1 was done on behalf of defendant Nos. I I to 14 and 18 and the cross examination of defendalt Nos.8, 9 and 1O is reported as NIL. Thus, the petitioner-plaintiff has cross examined Dw1 and he has not made out any case thereby application came to be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court failed to follow the procedure as contemplated under Order XVIII Rule 3_A of Civil procedure Code and the order passed thereon is perverse. Counsel further submits that defendant Nos. 11 to 14 and 1g have cross-examined Dwl and confronted some documents, ald marked as Exs. 86 to 811. Subsequent to the cross examination of the petitioner-pla intifr counsel, the order calrs \^- 4 for interference of this Court ald prayed to set aside the same i and allow the civil revision petition. 7 . Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that it is the petitioner-plaintiff, who has to make a request to the learned trial Court that they are reserving their right to cross-examine Dw- 1 after the cross examination of sailing defendants, which is not done by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition.

8. Petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of the contract of sale in respect of the land to an extent Acs.3.00 guntas out of the total extent of Acs.5.25 guntas in Survey No.166 situated at Thimmapur Village, Khanapur Mandal, Adilabad District, directing defendant Nos. 1 to 7 therein to execute the regular sale deed and register the same in his favour, on their failure to do so the Hon'ble Court be pleased to execute the same and also put the petitioner-plaintiff in possession of the property' 9. During pendency of the suit' respondent Nos'9 to ::';::r- -""' :"-:-" J.;5::.::: inl'h's"" g I derentant the orders as Per I _5

10. The material goes to show that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a memo, dated 31.03.2022, th,at the procedure contemplated under Order XVIII Rule 3-A of Civil Procedure Code has to be foilowed and there is no material placed before this Court with regard to the said memo , whether it is considered or not or it is still pending. Respondent No.2 Counsel submits that the memo is closed by the learned Trial Court. I 1. Delendart No.2 has filed his chief affidavit as Dw 1 on

31.O3.2O22, on the same date Exs.B3 to 85 vyere marked and thereafter on 04.O4.2022, learned counsel for the petitioner- plaintiff has cross-examined Dwl and on the same date Dwl was cross-examined by defendant Nos.ll to 14 and 18 and cross examination of Dwi by defendant Nos.B, 9 and 10 reported as NIL.

12. In the cross examination of Dwl by defendant Nos. 11 to 14 and lB Counsel, Exs.B6 to Bll were marked Ex.B6 is the true copy of pahani issued by Tahsildar, Khanapur in favour of the brother of Dwl. Ex.B7 is the certilied copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.4O1/2O11 at SRO, Khanapur executed by the brother of Dwl in favour of D11. Ex.B8 is the \_. \ 6 \ .l certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.962/2O l1 of SRO, Khanapur executed by D1 in favour of D12. Flx.B9 is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing documsnl No.96 1/2011 of SRO, Khanapur executed I by D 1 in favour of D 13. Ex.B 1O is the certified copy of registered sale deed bearing document No.963 of 2O 1 I of SRO, Khanapur executed by Dl in favour of D14 and Ex.B11 is the certilied copy oi registered sale deed document bearing No.11O9 of 2O11 ol SRO, Khanapur executed b-y D1 in favour of D18

13. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the purpose of filing the reca-ll application is to the extent of cross examining I)wl in respect of Ex.B6 to Ex.B 1 1. Learned counsel lor the petitioner has placed a reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Madras in K. Pad.ma. us:. V. Seloamani and. Ors.r wherein it is observed in pzrra 11 as under:- The main contention of the counsel for the petitloner is that second respondent is not an adaerse party to the Jirst respondent. Theg haae commort interest and q.re sailing togethey. In the t p14xg,TN/21 / 5t;/20L I I I E I i 1 circumstances, as per Section 138 of Indian Evidence Act, second respondent has no right to cross-exqmine D,W.l. This contention is untenable. It is uell settled that qll the parties to the suit can cross-exqmine the witness produced bg other partg. The order of cross- exa'mination bg the partg in the sult is the criteria. When one of the defendants is suppor-ting the case oJ the plaintiff 'and other defendant opposing the claim, the defendant who is supporting the plaintiff must cross- exannine the plaintiJf tuitness before other defendants cross-examine the said witness. Similarlg, when defendants haue sanne interest, the witness produced bg one of the defendants must be cross-examined bg the deJendant before such witness is cross-exqmined bg the plaintiff.

14. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly conceded that the petitioner may be permitted to cross-examine Dw 1 to the extent of Ex. 86 to Ex.B11 documents.

15. As the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff is for specilic performance of the contract and the documents were marked in the cross examination of Dw1 by defendant Nos.l 1 to 14 and 18, who are the subsequent purchasers of the plaint l3 + scheduie property. The reasons which are mentioned by the petitioner in the affidavit are bonalide and deserves for consideration. It is made clear that the cross examination of Du,l strould be confined to the extent of Ex. 86 to trx. B 1 1 only.

16. On perusal of the order passed by the learned trial Court in para 9, the observation made thereon is not in accordance with the cross examination of Dwl, wherein it is recorded thra.t the counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff has cross examine<l Du l, after cross examination of defendant Nos.B to 18 is incorrect and the same requires interference of this Co urt. 17 . In vie',r, of the aforesaid reasons, this Clivil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order passed 1n I.A.No. 193 of 2022 in O.S.No.21 of 2011, dated 14.O6.2022 by the learned trial Court. The petitioner is permitted to cross examine Dw I to the extent of the documents as indicated above. However, as the suit.of the year 2011, the iearned trial i! Court has to expedite the disposal of O.S.No.2i of 2O11 as early as possible within a period of nine 9 (09) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- U.SUDHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR o SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Senior Civil Judge, at Nirmal. 2. One CC to SRt. NARESH neOOy CHtruruOU, Advocate tOpUCt 3. One CC to SRl. SURESH SHtV SAGAR, Advocare topUCi 4 Two CD Copies GE/PSL 4W HIGH COUR'T DATE D:16/10/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1744 of 2022 P-6 x * L: \:. }l l 2 1 0il 'l 'li r ALLOWING THE MACMA W'THOUT COSTS %*