The High Court · 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 set aside the docket order dated '1 1 .11 .2019 as made in OS No. '1564 of 2013 on the file of Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 cum Vll Addl. District Judge, R.R.District at LB Nagar. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHAMMED NAWAZ HYDER REPRESENTING M/S P]LLX LAW FIRM Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRt. HARI SUGHANDH The Court made the following: ORDER ==#" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF IJ LANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO N, .NDTKONDA C.R.P. No.3029 of 2019 10'h December 2025 Between: Sri B.Narasimha Reddy AND .. Petitiori rdefendant No.2 Sri Devi Reddy Nagireddy and another. . . . Respondents/plaint 1 '-defendant No. 1 ORDER: 'lhis Civil Revision Petition is frled by the petiti,r .er under Article 221 of the Constitution of lndia, assailing the dcc iet order dated 1 1.1 1.2019 in O.S.No. 1564 of 2013 passed by the Specir I Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989-cur -VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (fo: short,'the trial court') 2

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are refened to as in the trial Court.

3. Vide the impugned order, dated 1 1 . I 1 .2019, the leamed trial Court passed the lollowing order "Learned commissioner filed the Memo stating that the learned defendant No.2 counsel refused to cross examine the DLVI by stating that at thefirst instance the plaintiff has to cross examine. But as per the procedure the defendant No.2 has to cross examine Dwl and therefore, the learned commissioneuJ directed first proceed with cross exominalion by Defendant No.2 counsel and thereafter f led the report".

4. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2. Brief facts of the case are: a) The plaintiff has filed O.S.No.1564 of 2013 praying the court to pass a decree for specific performance directing the defendants 1 and 2 to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff at his costs towards the Stamp duty and Registration charges in respect of the suit schedule property; that the plaintiff be put in vacant physical possession of the suit schedule properly upon de execution and registration of the sale deed; in case the defendant fails to comply the decree passed by this Court, the Court may itself execute and register a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff 3 at his costs towards the stamp duty and registration char 1es in respect of the suit schedule property and put hlm in vacant phys < rl possession of the same along with the cost

5. Pending the suit, rvhen thc matter came up lor cros -examination of DWl. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to r :cord the cross- examination of DW I , who is the witness for Defendant {o. I . Dunng the course of cross-examination, on 08.11.2019, the lear ed counsel for Defendant No.2 filed a memo stating that the plaint 1 's counsel rvas conducting the cross-examination of DWl, even thouglr Defendant No.2 desired to do so later. The memo lurlher stated that Deftr dant No.2 could proceed with the cross-examination of DW2 on the lround that the plaintiff and Defendant No.2 arc in collusion with De i ndant No.1 and have filed the suit in such collusion. The leamed counso fbr the ptaintiff also filed a memo before the trial court, which reads as f I [ows: "It is submilted that today mater is coming cross examination of Dw I before the I Commissionet' that during the pendency of t,'t suit proceedings Dwl has executed sale deed i., of D2 vide document bearing No.6i i dt:30.03.2015 and my mqin contention is thc sailing with D I , under Rule of Prudence the cat D2 has to cross .first the Dwl, otherwise it ui irreparable loss & damage to my case. Therefc r be conducted the cros.s examination of l) t completing cros.s examination by counset for .n; \ \ lbr the lvocate , aboye favour 2/20 I 5, D2 is nsel for I cause z. I will I after 4 6 The leamed trial courl upheld the contention of the ptaintiff vide impugned order, dated 11.11.2019 and directed the defendant No.2 to cross examine the DWI first and thereafter permitted the plaintiff to proceed.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed on the ground that the learned trial court ought to have seen that the cross-examination of any witness on behalf of the defendants has to be done after the plaintiff s cross-examination, in accordance with general procedure, and therefore the impugned order is illegal. lt is submitted that the learned trial court, without assigning any reasons, directed the petitioner/Defendant No.2 to cross-examine DW1 first and thereafter permitted the plaintiff, by issuing a cryptic and unreasoned order. lt is lurther averred in the grounds that as the plaintiff and Defendant No.I are in collusion, the plaintiff ought to conduct the cross-examination of DWl even in terms of procedure, and hence the order under revision is bad in Iaw and liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned trial court, without considering the memo filed by Defendant No.2 and without asslgnlng any reasons, wrongly allowed the plaintifls memo and ignored the objection memo filed by Defendant No.2. The petitioner, therefore, prays to allow the present civil revision petition. 5

8. Having Heard Mr,Mohammed Nawaz Hyder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.Hari Sughand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. i herein

9. Inspite ol service of notice to respondent No,l 'defendant No. I, none appeared for respondent No.2/defendant No.l.

10. On perusal of the docket order, it is noted rlat the petitioner contended that the general procedural of practict: that where a S defendant's witness is produccd after completion of chie - examination fro cross examination, the plaintifi' has the right to cross- I lamine hrst then only the right to cross-examination by the defendant ar.s :. ln cases where there are multiple defendants independently contest r s and by filing separate written statements, the plaintiff must cr rss-cxamine the defendants witnesses first and thereafter the co-defenrl nts will proceed with cross-examination. lt was further argued that u,l r, n zny defendant who is sailing with the plaintiff, the plaintiff has to crr ss-examine first. However, in cases where Defendant No.2 is sailing wirl Defendant No,1 and having a common defence and a common rvrittr r statement, both parties would then cross-examine the witness and the question of the plaintifls priority in cross-examination would not arise 6 r ,-,

11. In the present case, admittedly, the suit was initiatly filed by the plaintiff against Defendant No.l alone seeking specific performance. It is also an admitted fact that Defendant No.l sold the property pendente lite to Delenclant No.2. As such, Defcndant No.2 was impleaded as 2nd defendant. It was argued that Delendant No.2 is not sailing with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff and Defendant No.2 are not in collusion; rather, it is contended that Defendant No.1 suppressed the pendency of the suit and sold the properly to Defendant No.2. On the other hand, the leamed counsel lor respondent No.1 argued that initrally the ptaintiff filed the suit oniy against Defendant No.l seeking execution of a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and, therefore, the question of collusion between the plaintiff and Defendant No.2 does not arise. Any decree passed will be equally binding on both Defendant No.1 and Def'endant No.2. Accordingly, the leamed counsel supported the order passed by the leamed trial court. L2. Defendant No.2, having entered the suit by purchasing the properly during the pendency of the suit, contended that the plaintiff should cross- examine first next then Defendant No.2 should cross-examine. However, as stated above, the general procedure is that the plaintiff has to cross- examine first. In circumstances where Defendant No.2 entered the fray during the pendency of the suit, and Defendant No.2 claims title through Defendant No.1, it can be coqsd-,ed that Defendant No.2 is sailing with 7 Defendant No.l and any order passed will have same : fect on both the defendants. In such a situation, the procedure is that Dr:li :dant No.2 shall cross-examine the witness of Defendant No.l first. r r d thereafter the plaintilf shall cross-examinc. Corrsidering the above c i- um:itances, I do not find any error committed by the learned trial court ir passing the said docket order.

13. In view of the above, I do not find any grounds nade out by the revision petitioner to interf'ere rvith the impugned order. \ccordingly, the revision petition deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissec L4. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, it rny, shalJ stand closed Sd/- N.CT ANDRA SEKHAR EP[. Y REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i ;ECTION OFFICER To 1. The Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (F t 'A) Act' 1989 cum Vll A;dl. District Judge, R.R District at LB Nagar' Z. One CC to Sri. Mohammed Nawaz Hyder' Advocate [OPUCI 5. one Cc to Sri. Hari Sughandh, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies M PM/BA I ..,.+i HIGH COURT DATED:1 111212025 ORDER CRP.No.3029 of 2019 z;:R-fEED o C) t .,t 2Et'[amr f 7z * DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETI TION. G \/ : ! I i i I