The High Court · 2025

...RespondenUPlaintiff 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 suspend the order dated 23-07-2025 passed in l.A.S.R.No.772 ol 2025 in O.S.No. 63 ol 2017 passed by the Honorable V-Additional Sessions Judge, at Miryalguda, Nalgonda District pending disposal of the Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Arunn Marripeddi Counsel for the Respondent: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSIIN REDDY CIVIL RXVT SION PETITION No.3273 ()F 2025 ORDER:(ORAL) This civil revision petition arises out of the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the V-Additional Sessions Judge at Miryirlagu<Ia, Nalgonda District, in I.A.S.R.No.772 of 2025 in O.S.No.63 of 1,.017, whereby and whereunder the application filed by the petitioners -cle fendants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil procedure, l90g (for srhort, .C.p.C,) re-open the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff, was rtjr:cted.

2. Petitioner No.2 is the proprietor of petitioner rlo. I _ proprietary concem business. The petitioners are the defendants in the aforesaid suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of R:;., 5,45,000/_ from the defendants.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinaller are referred to as arrayed in the suit

4. The aforesaid suit filed by the plaintiff was decre.ed by judgment dated 19.02.2025. The defendants filed I.A.S.R.No.772. of 2025, under Section 151 CPC, to re-open the suit, inter alia stating that the plaintiff misused cheque No.065g22 dated 13.03.2017 fbr an irmounr of Rs. 10,00,000/- issued in his favour by the defendants. .l.he cheque was i i 2 BVR.J CR.l'.No.l27l of2025 dishonoured and the plaintiff fited the cheque bouncing case in c.c.No.l023 of 2ol7 on the file of the I-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class, Miryalaguda. The subject matter of the suit and the cheque bouncing case is one and the same. ln fact, defendant No.2 has repaid the loan amount vide cheque No 4627 46 for a sum of Rs.4,00,0001 and cheque No.462747 for a sum of Rs'6,00,000/-' The trial in criminal case and civil case should have run parallelly. The trial in C.C.No.1023 of 2Ol7 is pending' The defendants filed Crl.M.P.No.144of2019inC'C'No'l023ol2017,lorsendingcheque No.065g22 dated 13.03.2017 and the agreement dated 01.10.2014 to Forensic Science Laboratory for handwriting expert's opinion, and the same was dismissed by order dated27.03.2019. Aggrieved thereby, the defendants filed Crl.R.P.No.l5 of 2019 before the V-Additional Sessions Judge, Miryalaguda, which was allowed by order dated 16'09'2022' pursuant thereto, the disputed cheque and the agreement dated 0 1 . I 0.20 14 were sent for handwriting expeft's opinion, which is pending as on today. The trial court ought not to have disposed of the suit until disposal of the criminal case. Hence, the delendants requested the court to re_open the suit. LA.S.R.No.772 of 2025 filed by the dclendants was retumed as not maintainable. The defendants re-submitted the said I.A with a request to call the same on the Bench. on hearing the counsel for ( - 3 BVR.J CRP \o.l27l ofl025 the defendants, the trial Court rejected the said I.A by the irnpugned order 23.07 .2025 by recording the observations at paragr.aph No.7, which are extracted hereunder: "ln law, the reopening of the suit arises us per the provisions contemplated in Order-9 of CP.C., rnly in the name of dismissal of the same for default lor non prosecution or if any ex parte decree was ;assed, but Section I 51 of CPC does not enable the Cour. lo reopen the suit which was disposed of on merits. If at all, petitioner aggrieves by the judgment, he rnust have challenge the same before the Appellate ('ourt by preferring the Appeal and not in the way of reopen the suit and kept idle as prayed for. As the plea prayed by the petitioner is in the nature of review of the judgment passed b),this Court, but the provisions in Crder.l7 of the C.P.C are not contemplating any of t'rc ground shown b1, the petitioner to enable this Coun ro reopen the suit as prayed for, this petition is not tenrrhle in the eye of law."

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendanrs submitted that the trial Court ought to have re-opened the suit and r,:heard the suit subject to outcome of handwriting expert's opinion purs uant to the order dated 16.09.2022 passed in Crl.R.P.No.15 of 201,). I'he plaintiff fabricated the agreement dated 01.10.2014 and cheque \o.065822 dated 4 BV R.I CRP No.l273 of2025 \

13.03.2017 for Rs.10,00,000/- which was kept with him by defendant No.2 for security purpose. Crl.M.P.No. 144 of 2019 filed by the defendants, for sending the disputed cheque and agreement to the handwriting expert for comparison, was dismissed by order dated

27.O3.2Ol9,aggrieved by which Crl.R.P.No.15 ol2019 was filed and the same was allowed by order dated 16-09.2022.

6. Heard leamed counsel for the petitioners-defendants and perused the material available on record.

7. The suit was disposed of on merits. The appropriate remedy for the defendants is to fite an appeal under Section 96 of C'P'C' After disposal of the suit, the application under Section l5l of C'P'C is not maintainable, more particularly when the defendants seek to re-open the suit for the purpose of re-hearing the matter on merits. The contention of the defendants is that the suit has to be re-opened pending receipt of the handwriting expert's opinion in the criminal case and subiect to the result of the criminal case, the suit has to be re-heard. Such procedure is unknown to civil law. The defendants have two remedies, i.e., either to file an appeal under Section 96 of c.P.C or to file a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C. The trial Court give a finding in paragraph No.7 of the impugned order that the petition ) BVR.J CRP No ]273 of2025 though filed under Section l5l of C.P.C is in the nature of review, however grounds zrre not made out for review of the judgment dated

19.02.2025 in O.S.No.63 of 2017. Thus, this Court dcr:s not find any error in the imptrgned order passed by the trial Court.

8. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. The defendants are alu'ays at tiberty to file an appeal uncer Section 96 of C.P.C. If there is any delay in filing the appeal, it is for the defendants to file appropriate application for delay condonation by giving reasons lor delay including that of filing an application in I.A.S.R.I{o.772 of 2025 in O.S.No.63 of 2017 and thereafter the present civil rev sion petition. No order as to costs As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this civil revision petition stand closed. SD/- K.AMMAJI UTY REGISTRAR aT //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The V Additional Sessions Judge at Miryalaguda, Nalgonda District 2. One CC to Mr. Arunn Marripeddi, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies Kam/PS t- HIGH COURT DATED:1 2109!2025 / ORDER CRP.No.3273 of 2025 o ';,: o o 1I tl0tt 295 |. :, f),: +.y' ? DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION E r\