High Court · 2025

12. Smt. V. Pirrvathamma, Wo Late Brahmaiah, Aged 79 years, Occ Household 13.V. Achary,, S/o Late Brahmaiah, Aged 62 years, Occ Carpenter, 14.V. Raghavulu, S/o Late Brahmaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ Carpenter '15.V. Purushotham, S/o Late Brahmaiah, Aged 56 years, Occ Carpenter, (RespondentVDefendants 12 to 15 R/o H.No. 1-72' Thondupally, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District)

16.Srnt. Kalavathi, W/o Late Narsimha, Aged 69 years, Occ Household, Rl/o Siddapur Village, Kesarvet Mandal, Mahboobnagar District.

17. Smt. K. fulanemma, Wo Venkaiah, Aged 67 years, Occ Household R/o China Golconda, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District,

18.Smt. Laxrnamma, Wo Brahmaiah, Aged 59 years, Occ Household R/ o Peddaputi Nagaram Mllage, Maheshwaram Mandal, R.R. District.

19. P. Ashok Kumar, S/o P. Aniaiah Aged 46 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H.No. 3-2 Thondupally Village Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District-

20.P. Aniaiah, S/o P. Hanumaiah Aged 70 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 3-2 Thondupally Village Shamshabail Mandal, R.R. District. 21 . G. Sudheer Goud, S/o G. Laxmidas Goud Aged 52 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 16-1 1-72612, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad.

22.G. Rame sh Kumar, S/o G. Laxmidas Goud Aged 68 years, Occ Business' R/o H.No. 16-1 1-72612, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabad

23. Nay Kurnar Singh, S/o Daya Shanker Singh Aged. 41. years, Occ Business, R7oH.No. 1-'l-3, Mohan Nagar, Kothapet, Hyderabad. ( R-8 to ll-23 are not necessary party ) ...ResPondentslDefendents lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavil filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 747 of 2018 on the file of the Xlll Additional Dislrict Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Counsel for the Petitioner: SR!. K.CHANDRA SEKHAR REPRESENTING SRI A.KESHAVA REDDY "1 Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI M.D. SRIKANTH CBP.No.4073 of 20{8 Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia agigrbved by the or&r dded 06-04-2018 in 1.A.No.395 of 2018 in O.S.t{o.747 of 2OC6 on the fih of the Court of the lll Additional D'rstrict and Sessions Judge Rangareddy L.B.Nagar. Between: Nagamani, Wo Lakshminarayana Aged about 64 yearg, Occupation household R/o Solipeta Village, Shahbad Mandal Ranga Reddy District. Represented by her GPA holder Vadla Prabhakar Chary S/o Vadla Lakshmi Narayana Chary Aged about 39 years, Ocorpation TV Mechanic R/o H.No.1- 7/A, Chinnasolipeta Village Shahbad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...Petitioner/Defendent No. 1 1 AND

1. Vadla Anjaialr, S/o Vadla Narayana, Aged 60 years, Occ- Agricultural, R/o Thondupally Village, Shamshabd Revenue Mandal, R.R. District

2. VadlaVenkatesh, S/o Vadta Narayana, Aged 55 years, Occ- Agricultural, R/o Thondupally Village, Shamshabad Revenue Mardal, R.R. District

3. Vadla Anand, S/o Vadta Narayana, Aged 45 years, Occ- Agricultural, R/o Thondupally Village, Shamshabad Revenue Mandal, R.R. District 4. Vadla Raju, S/o Vadla Narayana, Aged 40 years, Occ- Agricultural, R/o Thondupally Village, Shamshabad Revenue Mandal, R.R. District

5. Vadla Prathap, S/o Vadla Narayana, Aged 38 years, Occ- Agricultural, R/o Thondupally Village, Shamshabd Relrerue Mandal, R.R. District 6. Vadla Thandava Krishna, S/o Vadla Narayana, Ag€d 35 years, Occ- Agricultura!, R/o Thordupally Village, Shamshabad Revenue Mandal, R.R. District

7. Yadla Sharada, Wo Vadla Harinath, Aged 45 years, Occ Agricultural, R/o Thondupally Village, Shamshabad Revenue Mandal, R.R. District. Res pon dents/Pla intiffs B. Vadla Vishnu, S/o late Govind Aged 49 years, Occ- Agricultural,R/o Thondupally, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District)

9. Vadla Bahamam, S/o late Govind Aged 44 years, Occ- Agricultura{,R/o Thond upa lly, Sharnshabad Mandal, R. R. D istrict)

10.Vadla Eashvver, S/o late GoviM Aged 39 years, Occ- Agricultural,R/o Thond upa lly, Shamshabad [/liardal, R.R. District) 1l.Vadla Narsinrhlu, S/o late Govind Aged 37 years, Occ- Agricultural, R/o Thondupally, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R. District)

12.smt. v.l)arvathamma, wo Late Brahmaiah, Ased 7g years. occ- Househord, R/o H.No. 1-72, Thondupaily, ShamshabaO Ma-nAat, nln. bistriii

13.V. Achary, S/o.Late Brahmaiah, Ageg 62_ygarst Occ- Carpenter,R/o H.No. 1- 72, Thondupally, Shamshabad Ma-ndat, n.R. Oistrict

14. V..Raghav-ulu, S/o Late Brahmaiah, Aged 60 years, Occ_ Carpenter. R/o H.No. 1-72, Thondupaily, Shamshabai Mandil, n.if. Oistrid 15.V.-Purushot[qm, S/o Late Brahmaiah, Aged S6years, Occ- Caroenter. R/o H.No. 1 - /2, Thondupaily, Shamshabab ManOat, n.C.' Oiatrict -'- "-''' " - 16.Smt- Kalavathi, Wo Late Narsimha, Aged 69 years, Ocr_ Household, R/o Siddapur Viilage, Kesampet Mandai, I,iianOoo6nigdr District. - - -- '

17.smt. K. lrlanemma, wo Venkaiah, Aged 67years, occ- Househord R/o china Golcond;r, Shamshabad Mandal, R.R: Distria.t,

18. Smt..Laxmamma, Wo Brahmaiah, Aged 59 years, Occ_ Household Rl/o - '-- Peddapu,ti Nagaram Village, Maheshilaram Mandit, n.n. OistriA.

19. P- Ashok Kumar, S/o p. Anjaiah Aged 46 years, Occ_ Business, R/o H.No. 3_2 Thondupally Village Shamshabad fuandal; R.n. Oiiin:A. Thondupalty Viflage Shamshaoai Mand'al, n.if. Oistrict. 3---' --

20.P Anjaiah, S/o P. Hanumai?h.Age-d-70 years, Occ- Business, R/o H.No. 3-2

21.G..Sudh-r;er G_gud, S/o G. Laxmidas Goud Aged 52 yeers, Occ_ Business, R/o H.No. 16-1 1-72612, Gaddiannaram, Hyderabid.

22.Q Rame sh {qmqr, S/o G. Laxmidas Goud Aged 6g yearc, Occ_ Business, R/o H. No. 1 6 - 1 1 -Z 26t2, Gadd iannaram, HVOeiiUaO " A',:'fil?l'i ?13:[ifl:^P,g3;:ftlg:fl1',1#g*:l.r.uo, occ- Business, ...Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 201 8 Petition r:nder section 1s'l 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 procr:eding in o.s.No. 247 of 2o1g, dated 06-04-201g on the file of Xlil Additional Dist'ict and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI A. KESHAVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRt M.D. SRIKANTH The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IIT THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATT OF TELIUTGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSIITG RAO NAITDIKONDA N, 20L DATE, 11.12.2425 Between: Nagamani ...Petitioner/ Defendant No. 1 1 AND Vadla Anjaiah and 22 others ...Respondents coMMoN oRPER These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.Nos.395 and 396 of 2018 in O.S.No.747 of 2006 0n the file of t*re XIII Additional District and Sessions Jud.ge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel virtually appearing on behalf of Sri A.Keshava Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and none appeared for the respondents'

3. The petitioner herein who is defendant No' 1 1 in the suit filed an application i.e., I.A.No.395 of 2O18 under Section 151 of ! i i I I I i I 2 NN& I cRP-4058 &4073-20L8 CPC prayirrg the learned b,'ial Court to reopen tfe defendarrts sjde evidence fi>r cross-examination of DW2 and DW3 by his counsel and other application i.e., I.A.No.396 of 2O18 is filed- by the petitioner herein under Order XVIII Rule LT r/w Section 151 of CPC \Mith ;a praler to recall DW2 and DW3 for cross-exarnination. The learned trial Court has dismissed the I.A.Nos.395 and 396 of 2OL8 in O.S.N o.747 of 2006 on merits not entitled to reopen the defendants side evidence for cross-exarnination of DW2 and DW3 and also not entitled to recall DW2 and DW3 for cross-exarnination. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.Nos,396 arrd 395 t>f 2018, the present petitions are filed contending that the learne,d trial Court without considering tlle facts mentioned in , the aflidavit and without following legal principles and also considering the age and health condition of the petitioner, ttre learned trail Court has d.ismissed ttre petitions on the ground that no suflicient cause or reason on the part of the petitioner for recalling DW2 and DW3 for cross-examination on behalf of the petitioners on those particular days. However, it is submitted that the recall of DW2 and DW3 sought by the petitioner to elicit the real facts from the mouth of the witnesses which would help \ \ \ \ t 3 NN&J cRP_4058 &4073_20L8 to dispose the matters on merits. The learned trial Court ought to have considered the health condition of tJle pgtitioner, as such he appointed a GPA to proceed with the matters. Therefore, petitioner/defendant No.ll did not contact her counsel and unable to attend on the specific dates fixed for cross-exarrrination of DW2 and DW3

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein who is defendant No.ll in the suit which is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. During ttre pendency of ttre suit, as the matters were coming up arguments, defendant No.11 contended that as her cogrrsel could not cross-examine DW2 and DW3, the learned trial Court has closed the cross-examination of DW2 on 29.L2.2OL4 and DW3 on

19.06.2017 respectively. The reason for noR cnoss-examining DW2 and DW3 prior to the said days was that her S'enior Counsel was held up in tlle other Court. In t*re meanwhile, the learned trial Court closed the cross-examination of DW2 and DW3 and the said non ex€rmination was neither intentional nor want on and that it was just and necessarJr to recall DW2 ard DW3 by reopening the evidence of the defendants. l I I I I i I l, I ,,1 :i: 4 NN&} cRP_4058 &4073-2018 5a. Iearned counsel for respondent Nos.l to t has filed the cor:nter allidavit before the learned trial Court denied tlre avennentsi made in the petition and contended t.l-at the petition was Iiled on all false, fictitious, concocted, fabricated, and. on frivolous grounds and without cogent reasons in liling the present petitions. At this belated stage, it is only to cover the lacr:nas of their evidence and submitted tJ:at the petitions are not 5b. It isl further contended by the respondents that it was brought to the notice of the petitioner long back, when an application filed for recall of DWS even after their evidence was completecl, the matter was posted for arguments, but the petitioner knowing the above facts, waited. as a spectator, and now came up with these petitions without explaining proper reasons by suppressing the true facts. 5c. Lea::rred counsel for respondent Nos.19 at:rd, 20 has also Iiled a counter allidavit before the learned trial Court contended that the petition was not maintainable and deserves to be dismissecl. It is further contended that the petitioner has not \ \ \ \ I I I 5 NNR,I cRP_4058 &40n_mL8 assigned any prop€r reasons for reopening the evidence of the defendants and finally prayed to dismiss ttre petition.

6. Recording the submissions of both tlre par:ties, tlre learned trial Court has dismissed tlle petitions on ttre ground that there are no grounds to consider their applications and tlre very reason cited is in a very casual manner for recalling of DW2 gI4 DW3 for cross-examination on their behalf without orplaining the bona fide rea.sons and without takirrg any proper steps for non cross-examination of DW2 and. DW3. At this belated stqge, when the matter was posted for arguments without any suffrcient reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to recall DW2 and DW3. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the petition.

7. I have perused the entire material on record.

8. Admittedly, in fact the suit was coming up for arguments, after tl:e cross-examination of DW2 and DW3 was closed on

29.12.2OL4 and 19.O6.2OL7 respectively, as tlre petitioner counsel could not cross-examine DW2 ard DW3 on the said days. Hence, the learned trial Court has closed the right to cross-examine the DW2 and DW3 by the counsel for DWll and the reasons which are stated in the aflidavit by the petitioner :i I I I ,i 6 NN& I cRP_4058 &4073_20L8 discloses that as the senior counsel was held up in tle other Court, nrearrwhile the learned trial Court closed the cross-exarnir:ation of DW2 and DW3. Except the said reason, nothing hras been placed before trial Court to show why tlle petitioner,/defendant No.1 1 could not cross-examine Dw2 and DWS on 129.L2.2OL4 rrrrd, 19.06.2017 respectively. Even it was submitted by the respondents that the closure of croSSl-exarnination of DW2 and DW3 was brought to the notice of the petitioner while recall petition to Dws was filed by the responderrts. Despite knowing the same, the petitioner did not choose to take arry steps to recall Dw3 prior to tg.o6.2ol1 or immediately after the evidence was closed by the trial Court. The reasons w'hich were cited being very vague and without giving arry reasons for the non-appearance prior to the said days shows that Dw1l though having knowledge about the cross-examination of the witnesses on behalf of the defendants, now the petitioners came up with the present applications only with the single line reason, that priqr to the said days, the Senior Counsel was busy and held up in other court. on the basis of the reason cited and explanation which is submitted by Dw I I for non \ \ \ \ 7 NNR,I cRP_4058 &4073_20L8 cross-examination of the Dw2 and DW3 on the respective days as well as on the earlier occasions when the matter was posted for cross-examination of DW3 and DWg is vague. 9. ,,. In view of tl:e above circumstances and having pemsed the order passed by the learned trial court, this court also is of t]. e opinion that t]:e reason which is cited by t]:e petitioner for reopening the evidence of the defendants and to recall DW2 and Dw3 could not be treated as proper e:<planation for non-appearance prior to the said days. The present applications were filed on t2.o3.2olg. Admittedly, ttrc cross-examination of DW2 and DW3 was closed on 29,12.2oL4 and 19.o6.2017 respectively and when the matters came up for arguments, no such bona ftde reasons are submitted by Dwl I in filing the applications. Therefore, the order passed by the trial cor.rrt in dismissing the apprications does not need any interference, as no error committed by the trait court in dismissing the apptication and due to lack of merits in the preserrt civil Revision petitions, the sarne deserves to be dismissed I l I t \ \ I NN& I cRP_4058 &4O732OL8

10. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed considering the order passed in learned trial Court I.A.Nos.395 and 396 oJi 2018. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. SD/. M. NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY'/ I l To,

1. The Ill Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rang Reddy District L.B.Nagar.

2. One CC to SRI A.KESHAVA REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI M.D. SRIKANTH Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI.MAK MUKHEED,Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL 1'a HIGH COURT DATED:1711212025 COMMON ORDER .-€ r* 1' 6 I l a 2I JAil M z. t * .TCi 1 CRP.Nos;.4058 and 4073 of 2018 DISMISSING THE BOTH CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS : : t I Z ! l.' I f t l &6 \ 9p