The trial court relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court in vs Susru Sca Foodsr and in the case of Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs.

(The remaining Defendants from No.2 to 7 are not in record and the relief sought against defendant No.8 only, hence they are not parties to this application) ...Respondents IA 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 grant stay order all fu(her proceedings in OS.No.56i2014 on tht: file of Vl Additional District Judge at Sathupalli, pending the disposal of CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SREENIVASA RAO RAVUL,l )ATl Counsel for the Respondents: SRI G.RAVI CHANDRA SEK- AR The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLB SMT. JUSTTCE T. MADHAVI DEVI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3II9 OF 2025 ORDER I'his Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dt. t4.08.2025 in I.A.No.l3 of 2025 in O.S.No.56 of 2014 on the file of the VI Additionat District Judge, SathuPatli Z. The petitioner is the plaintifl rvho filed the suit in O.S.No.56 of 2014 for declaration and recovery of parl consideration on the basis of an alleged unregistered agreement of sale d1.08.06.2013. Delendants No. l, 2, 5 and 8 have filed their written statements separately. Thereafter, the plaintiff has flled I.A.No. l3 of 2025 praying that respondent No.2/defendant No.8, the Senior Divisional Manager, I.O.C., Vijayawada presently Senior Manager (Retail Sales) Warangat D.O., should be summoned to adduce lris evidcnce belore the Court as D.W.2 or as a couft-witncss. In thc application, it is stated that delendant No.S was impleaded into the suit subsequently and that defendant No.8 has filed a written statement denying the avetments in the plaint and also : --- C.li ' .lo i ll9 o12025 2 stating that he is not a proper and necessary party to rI e suit and that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that rr r ile recording the e vidence of D.W. 1, the counsel lor respondenr ro.g also cross_ examined him on 20-06.2025, wherein D.w. l adnrrr e'd the registered lease deed between derendants No. r to g and thc .ienation or suit schedule properlies by him vide registered gift deed ir L irvour of his wife and .egistered sale deed in favour of defendants Nr.3 1o 6 rvith the consent ol defcndant No.S only. Ir is stated that D. \ / l also adrnitted that till the year 20 I 8 only, stocks were raised in rl r n2mg5 of adhoc dealers. It is submitted that neither the registeretr Iease deed vide Docurnc,t No.l966 of 1999 nor the documents under rvhich the stocks r.vcre purchased were filed before the Court. It is srr rrnitted that afier cornpletion of evidence olD.w. l, defendant No.g h.rl r:quested tilne to aclduce thcir e'iclence and the matter was posted to -.( .16.2025 and the suit was posted lbr arguments from 30.06.2025 to I 1.07.202_s as thc counsel lor def'endant No.8 reporled no evidence or ,iis behalf. It is stated that during the course of the cross_examinati ,n of D.W. l, he admitted the registered lease deed between defendan : No. I and g and the alienations of the schedule properties which rv:.r: made by him through registered gift deed in favour of his wifc by name Darla J- C.R.P.No.3l 19 of 2025 3 Swethachandra and registered sale deed in favour of defendants No.3 to 6 with the consent of defendant No.8 onty. It is stated that D.W. I admitted that during the subsistence of registered lease deed, he alienated the entire schedule propefiy with the consent ol I.O.C./defendant No.8 in lavour oldefendants No.2 to 6 and that tilt the year of 2018 they raised stock purchases fiom delendant No.g and defendant No.5 Vanama Kiran Kumar was appointed as adhoc dealer and the same was narated in the chiel exarnination of D.W.l. It is stated that in the written statement of D.W.8, he mentioned the significance of the registered lease deed and the adhoc dealer appointment from

05.10.2019 for a period of two years under dif'ferent names of adhoc dealers without placing any valid document to prove the same and without disclosing the details of stock purchase and that both defendants No. I and 8 have intentionally suppressed the vital documents before the Court and therefore, the petitioner prayed the Court to summon defendant No.8 for giving his evidence before the Cour1. The same was opposed by def'endant No. I by filing a counter affldavit stating rhat defendant No.8 is only a proforma pafiy and that the petitioner has no prima facie case or balance of convenience in his favour. It is stated that as it is an old matter pertaining to the year 2014 and that the petitioner - C.R.l' J,r i 9 of 20li I has filed this apprication only to delay the trial. Defenc lnt No.g also has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made i r the petition and further that thcre is no relief sought against defendarl .\o.g in the suit and that he has not chosen to lead any evidence in he said suit and stated the same before the Court. It is stated that the r:t.itioner/plaintiff is not entitled to cornpel the respondents to lead evirl, nce. Taking the same into consideration, the triat Court has dismissed :l e application of the plaintiff and challenging the same, the present CRp i ; filed.

3. -fhe trial Court has observed that even when lefendant No. I admitted some olthe case facts in his cross_examination as D.W.l about the registered rease deed between defendants No.1 and 3 a.nd alienations of the schedule properlies in favour of defendants No 2 to 6 through registered gift deed and registered sale deeds with he consent of delendant No'g, the said arienations occurred during the subsistence of registered lease agreement in between defendants No.l I i,l g, but those transactions are the intemal matters amongst them anc rre in no way concemed with the transaction in this suit in between th: plaintiff and defendant No r' It is rurther observed that the praintiff rrt :,ds to corect some evidence to substantiate his case basing on the : ridsnsg 16 6s adduced by defendant No.g which cannot be permitted in 1 re eye of law. w. - C.R.P.No.i I l9 of 2025 5 The trial court relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of National Insurance Company Limitcd and others Vs. Susru Sca Foodsr and in the case of Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer and another2 to come to this conclusion. Challenging the same, the present CRP is filed.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is fited lor declaration of title and specific performance of an unregistered agreement of sale dt.08.06.2013 and that D.W. I in his evidence has admitted execution of registered gift deed in favour of his wife by name Darla Swethachandra uirle document No. 1370 of 2014 dt.2g.O4.2}l4 and subsequent execution of registered sale deeds in lavour of defendants No.3 to 6. It is stated that defendant No.g had reported that there is no evidence lrom their part, but during the cross-examination def-endant No.1, it was suggested that there was a registered lease deed virle Document No.1966 of 1999 on the file of SRO, Madhira and through the same, he has conveyed title and possession to third parties through registered documenrs dt.29.04.2014 and 06.07.2015. It is stated that these statements during the evidence of D. W. I are categorical ' zooslr; nlo ar+ '?zoz3 INSC tots C.R.l. ,o I I i9 of 2(rli 6 - admissions atld therefore, the evidence of defenc z nt No.8 is very important for adjudication of the issue and therelbr:. thc trial Court ought to have considcred the same and ought to have t irccted def'endant No.8 to give ev idencc. 5, Learnecl counsel for the petitioner placed - liance upon the judgment ol the llon'ble Supreme Court in the cast: c,l' Chowdamma (D) by LR and another Vs. Venkatappa (D) by L[l: and anothed in support olhis contention that in civil proceedings, part cularly where the facts lie exclusively within the personal knowledgt. c,1' the party, the refusal to entcr the rvitness box carries grave eviden rrry consequences and such denials when measured against the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the scales unambiguo rsly tilt in favour of the plaintif.ls

6. He lurrher placed reliance upon the decision o {.1). High Courl (as it then was) in the case of Kosuru Kalinga Mahr raj u Vs. Kosuru Kaikammaa in support of his contention that under Crr ler l6 Rule l4 ol CPC, the Couft can surllnon any pafty to the suit rr a Court witness altel satislying itsell'about its necessity. He thereforr rrayed for setting -.-:92: tttSC t0iE Cirit Appeal No. jJ0of20lt dt.25.08.2025 'lq99(6)ALD78o:t000(t)At_T409:CRpNo.4548of t999 dt.30. t O. t9 ) K C-R.P.No.3l l9 of 2025 7 aside of the impugned order or to direct the trial Court to summon def-endant No.8 to the witness box.

7. Learned counsel for respondent No.l, on the other hand, retied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner cannot seek a direction to defendant No.8 to adduce evidence before the Court as D.W.2 as defendant No.S has alreadv filed a written statement and has reponed that he has no evidence to adduce in the suit It is stated that the petitioner has filed this petition only to prolong the trial and to fitl up the lacunae in his case which is impermissible in law It is stated that defendant No.8 is only a formal/proforma party to the suit and no relief has been claimed against defendant No.8 and tl.rerefbre, the I.A. was rightly dismissed by the trial Cour1.

8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that defendant No.8 has been made as a party respondent by order of the Courl and that defendant No.8 has filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint and also placing reliance upon the registered iease deed vide Doctment No.1966 of 1999. The written statement was filed on 30.09.2021 and the plaintiff has not chosen to require the said document to be flled before the Court. It is i 8 - \ only after the evidence ol D.W. 1 is recorded that the ,ctitioner has filed this application. When defendant No.g has not repl 1ed any evidence and has also not chosen to give any evidence by e.t e,ring the witness box, this Courl is of the opinion that the plainti -l cannot seek his evidence to be recorded. Il there is any evidence ei r:n by defendant No.S which needs rebuttal by rvay of cross_exa nination by the petitioner/plainr i1l. then only he may be called to the ,r,itness box or in such circumstances, if the said witness refuses to giv : zLny evidence, an adverse inference may be drawn in respect of the se d evidence. The decisions relied upon by the leamed counsel for the rt:titioner are not applicable to the lacts ol the case before this Court.

9. In view. of the sarne, this Court does not find ury merit in this civil Revision Petition- The civir Revision petiti.r is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

10. Pending uriscellaneous peritio,s, if any, in this llRp shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPY// SD/ - K. AMMAJI tl :PUTY REGISTRAR \ \ SECTION OFFICER -sii

1. The Vl Additional District Judge at Sathupa.lli i. o;; dc'to snrENlvASA RAo RAvULA 3. OneCCto SRI G.RAVI CHANDRASEKHAR' 4. Two CD CoPies ",.rro t_Kp PATI, Advr cate [OPUC] Advocate ltPUCl NVB/Sa a-,"t4 HIGH COURT DATED:1811112025 ORDER CRP.No.3119 of 2025 : :==-..:. - -t{E s,^I. ( o ()l -tl ')l', ' v z. '* r DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETTION TKs v6.