The High Court · 2025

M/s. V.K.A Constructions, Rep by its managing partner K.R.Kaushal Karan A Reqd. Partnership firm, having its office at Door No. 11-13-105612, Road No. 9, Vasavi Colony, R K Purari, Hyderabad - 5OO 102, Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri K R Kaushal Karan, S/o. late Sri K R Babulal, aged 58 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. H. No. 11-13-105612, Road No. 9, Vasavi Colony, R K Puram, Hyderabad - 500102 ...Petitioner AND 't . Greater Hyderabad Municipal corporation, Rep. by The Superintending Engineer Il, GHMC, Central Zone, at 6th Floor, Head office, CC Complex Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

2. The Executive Engineer, GHMC, Division Vl, Central Zone, Sth floor, Parking Complex, Abirls, Hyderabad ...Respondents lA NO: 'l OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay further proceedings in O.S.No.419 of 2013 before the lllrd Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad until disposal of this Civil Revision Petitlon in the interest of justice and equity. CIVIL ISION PETITION NO: 2889 F 2024 Petition under Ariicle 227 of the constitution of lndia against the orders dated 1210812024 Passed in l.A.No. 1 210 of 2o24 in os No.41 9 ot 201 3 on the fi te of the I I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: !Vs. )f.K.n Constructions,, Rep. by its managing par:ner K.R.lGushal Karan A Regd. Partnership frrm, having its office at Doo-r'No 11-13-1056/2, Road No. 9,V."*y.9-otply,R K Puram,_Hyd.erabad 500 102 Rep. by its Managing Partner Sri K R Kaushal Karan, S/5. late Sri K R Batrulal, dged's8 years, Scci 9usiness, Rl/o. H. No. 'l 1-13-1056/2, Road No.9, Vasavi C-olony, R X pirram, Hyderabad 500102 AND

1. 9reater Hydgrabad Municipal corporation,, Rep. by t he Superintendinq _EnS!n9", ll, GHMC, CentralZone, at 6th Ftoor, HeLa omce, CC ComplEx Tank Bund, Hyderabad.

2. The Execu-tive Engineer,, GHMC, Division Vl, Centra ;:one, Sth floor, parking Complex, Abids, Hyderabad ...Petitioner ...Respondents IANO:1O 2024 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in t re: circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Clurt may be pleased be pleased to stay further proceedings in O.S.No.41g ot 2013 before the lllrd Additional chief Judge, city civil court. Hyderabad until disposal of this civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice and equity. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VEOA V|DYANATH REDCy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: SRI G MADHUSUDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLT SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CTVIL REVISTON PETTTION Nos.288E and 2889 of2024 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri S.Veda Vidyanath Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and2. Perused the recrord.

2. Ttre C.R.P. No. 2888 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12.08.2024 passed in I.A. No.12ll of 2024 in O.S. No. 419 of 2O13 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, 'the trial CourtJ, wherein, the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19OB {for short, 'the CPCJ to recall the evidence of D.Ws.l and 2 for further cross examination, was dismissed.

3. The C.R.P. No. 2889 of 2024 is filed aggrieved by the impugned order dated I2.Oa.2O24 passed in I.A. No. l2lO of 2024 in O.S. No. 419 of 2013 by the learned III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, 'the trial Court'), wherein, the petition filed under Order XVIII Rute 17 read with Section 151 of the CPC to reopen the evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 for furtkrer cross examination, was dismissed. 2 CRP Nos.2B8B dn<t 288, "J;#l 4. The case of the revrsion petitioner is that D.W.2, who is an ollicial witness, got srmmoned by the revisi'r' petitioner/plaintiff for the purpose of production of certain docurne:nts. The said D.W.2 did not produce any of the documents which are sought by the revision petitioner instead produced some other documents and marked as exhibits. On the said date, the re,c sion petitioner could not cross examine the D.W.2 as he was not aw r:e of the contents of the documents produced by the D.W.2. 5' while so, the trial court crosed the c;-c,ss examination of D.W.2 as 'Nil'. When the revision petitioner/plaintiff frled petitions to reopen and recall the evidence of D.Ws. 1 arr<I 2 to confront the contradictions in the oral evidence of D.Ws. 1 and 2 and to cross examine on the exhibits marked through D.\t,l .2, the tria_l Court dismissed the petitions leading to filing the p re:sent civil revision petitions.

6. learned counsel for the revision petitioner: argued that fair opportunity is not given to cross examine D.U,..:2 and that D.W.2 produced documents which are not in ttre knowle,lge of the revision petitioner/ptaintiff and ttrerefore, the revision petitioner was not ready to cross examine the D.W.2 on the sarne d.ay. To the extent that certain documents marked through D.W.i), the petitionsr;. 3 RY'J CRP Nos.28aA @nd 289 of 2024 entitled to cross examine the D.W.2 on the contents of the said documents.

7. Coming to the aspect of recalling the evidence of D.W. 1, to further cross examine him, for confronting with the evidence produced by D.W.2, the said witness was examined in the year 2Ol9 and,was cross examined at length. The said witness sought to be recalled as certain important questions were not put during his \ cross examination and there is a need to confront the evidence of D.W.2 and D.W. I and uice-uersa. Failure to put certain important questions cannot be a ground to recall any witnesses that too after Iapse of four (O4) years. Further, in case, there are any contradictions between the evidence of D.Ws.1 and 2, the revision petitioner can take advantage of the sarne and no purpose would be served in confronting the evidence of D.Ws.l and.2 or uie-uersa. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to reopen and recall the evidence of D.W. 1.

8. In view of the foregoing discussions, both the Civil Revision Petitions are Partly Allowed. Consequently, I.A. Nos. 12f O and 1211 of 2024 in O.S. No. 419 of 2013 are parfly allowed only to the extent of reopening and recalling evidence of D.W.2 for cross examination on the contents of the new exhibits marked. The trial 4 court is directed to permit trre revision petitioner to cross-examine D.W.2 alone. There shall be no order as to costs. cRp Nos.28B8 and 28rn .f f#X Miscellaneous applications, if any pe nding, shall stand closed. / Sd/- S. MALLIKARJUNA.RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ \ / ,/TRUE COPY// SEbroru orrrcen To,

1. The lll Additionat Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad. ?. 9n" 99 !o !r!Veda Vidyanath Reddy, Advocateioer_c1 3. One CC to Sri G Madhusudhan Reddy Advocate [OplJC] 4. Two CD Copies ABK,/PSL \x HIGH COURT DATED: 0110912025 COMMON ORDER CRP Nos. 2888 and 2889 OF 2OZ4 PARTLY ALLOWNG THE CRPs WITHOUTCOSTS G*PFu . to ,1 . |,.^. ? ) -'t r iE Si-\ S ;r: ( 't) .\ 2 E t{0tt il6 -d * PATC trEg