The High Court · 2025

4. Nellutla Kummari Srisailam, S/o Nellutla Kummari Shiva Raju, aged about major, occupation. Service, Allare r/o Rahimhanguda village Bibinagar Mandal Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district ... Res Pondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2025 petition under Section 151 of 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 of all further proceedings in OS No 11612014 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri district at Bhongir' Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Katepalli Sai Sashi Yadav Counsel for thrr Respondents : - Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 29-07-2325 passed ln lA No 38512025 in OS 11612014 on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir. Between: M/s Narne Estates Private Limited, A company registered under the Companies Act having office at 1 Gunrock Enclave sebunderabad, Telangana 50b 00g lepresenteJ by its Authorised Representative Sailendra Kumar, s/o Mahanth Prasad.agad. about 44 years, occupation. Private Employee having office at 1 Gunrock Erclave Secunderabad, Telangana 500 009. ...Petitioner/Plaintiff AND

1. Nellutla Kummari Shiva Raju, s/o N Narasaiah, aged aboutTl years, occupertion. Agriculture

2. Nellutl;l Kummari Chandravasu, s/o Nellutla Kummari Shiva Raju, aged about major, occupation. Service

3. Nellutla Kummari Sudhakar,, s/o Nellutla Kummarishiva Raju aged about major, occupation. Service

4. Nellutla Kummari Srisailam, s/o Nellutla Kummari Shiva Raju, aged about major, occupation. Service '(All district) are r/o Rahimhanguda village, Bibinagar mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri ...RespondentslOeteriOants lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petitirln 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 of all further proceedings in oS No 11 6t2014 on the file of the principal District Judl;e, yadadri Bhuvanagiri district at Bhongir, pending disposar of cRp. counsel fo. the petitioner : sri. Kateparti sai sashi yadav Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: J SK,J THE HONOURABL SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH CIVIL N Nos. 3236 and 4 of 2o.25 COMMON ORDER:

1. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions a.re connected to each other and arising out of one and the same suit i.e. O.S.No.116 of 2OL4 on the file of learned Principal District Judge, Bhongir, they are heard together and being disposed of by a comrnon order at the stage of admission itself. 2. i) C.R.P.No.3236 and 3324 of 2O2S are filed against the common orders passed in I.A.No.B84 of 2025 and 385 of 20125 in O.S.No.116 of 2OL4, whereby the petitions filed by the petitioner/plaintiff to reopen the evidence and to recall the evidence of DW1 for further cross-examination, were dismissed by its order dated 29.07.2025.

3. Heard Sri Katepalli Sai Sashi Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner perused the record. , / l 4 SK,J The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff

4. would submit that the petitioner, being the Director of plaintiff-company, filed a suit for specific performance of contract executed by the respondent/Defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property, admear;uring to an extent of Ac.16.O6 Guntas in sy.Nos .56L / A and 5621 AA, situated at Bibinagar Village and Mandal, Yadadri-Bhuvanagiri District. In the seLid suit, both sides have adduced the evidence and the suit was at the stage of argumentS' He would further submit that in the said suit, the defendant No.4 was exalnined as Dw1, however, in spite of efforts made: by the petitioner/plaintiff, he could not secure the presence of defendant No. 1 to be examined. He would further submit that some important points could, not be elicited through the cross-exarnination of DW 1 and therefore the petitioner filed these petitions to r,:open the evidence for the purpose of recalling of DW 1 for further cross-examination, but the said ) )\ 5 SK,J petitions were dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Order-18, Rule -17 CPC which empowers the trial court to recall any witness for clarification or for further examination at any stage. The petitioner/plaintiff only sought to recall DW1 to put certain important questions which were left out by inadvertence, but not to introduce any new evidence. Further, no prejudice will be caused if DWl is recalled as the interlocutory applications are filed before Commencement of arguments and requested to set aside the impugned orders.

6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff and upon perusing the impugned order passed by the trial court, this court of the considered view that, the petitioner/plaintiff filed suit vide o.S.No.l16/2OL4 on the file of Principal District ,:r l I I i 1,, t,i I l, ; , : : I i I I I 6 SK,J Judge, Bhongir, against the respondents/Defendants for specific performance of the contract dated 23.02 - 1999 exe cuted by respondent No. 1/t)efendant No.1 and admitteclly in the suit both sides r:vidence was closed and the suit is at the stage of arguments and at that stage the petitioner/plaintiff filed t'wo interlocutory apprications, to reopen the evidence for the purpose of recalling of Dwl for further cross-examination on the ground that certain aspecl-s could not be elicited through. the cross- examination of Dw 1 . The trial court dismissed both the a1>plications on the ground that petitioner should have rnade all the possible efforts to test the witness by cross-examination when cross-examined Dwl, but not at the, stage of arguments and further observed that as suit i,s at the stage arguments and arso the suit being one crf the oldest matter of the yetr, 20t4 and the prayer of the petitioner was declined. .\\\ t \ l I I I I 7 SK,J

7. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that under Order- 1 8, Rule- 1 7 CpC, the court can recall ary witness for clarification or further clarification at any stage Order-l8, RuleLT, reads as follows: " Rule-77. Court maA recall and examine witness. The Court may at any stage of a suit recall ang witness who has been examined and mag (subject to the law of euidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit. As per Order-18, Rule-17 of CPC, the provision is not intended to enable the parties to recall any witness for further examination. It is primarily to enable the Court to clarify any issue or doubt by recalling a.ny witness either suo motu or on application of any party, so that the Court can itself put questions and elicit answers The Hon'lcle Supreme Court of India in K.K.Velusamg Vs. lV.Pcrlanisamgl held that the power 'qzorrl 11 scc 27s I \ a" I 8 SK,J of the Cr)urt under Order 18, Rule- 17 CPC is only for clarification to enable the Court to clarify any issue or doubt, it may have in regard to evidence led by the parties 'cy recalling any witness so that the Court itself can pul- questions to such witness and elicit answers. The said relevant portion of the said Judgment is as under: .. 19. We mag add a word of caution. The power u/s 151 or order 18 Rtde 17 of tie Cod.e is not intended. to be used routinely, merelg for the -lf so used, it will defeat the uery purpose of uarious a::kittg. o,n nilnr..rrts to the Code to expedite trials. But where the apptication is found. to be bona fide and where the qdditional euidence, oral or -d,tcumentq.ry, utill assfst the court to clarifg the euidence o_n the issues and utill o.iirt in rendering justice, and the court is sgtisfied that non- production earlier utas for uatid and sufficient reasons, the court may 'ercercise its discretion to recall the pifnesses or permit the fresh euid"ence. But if it does so, if should ensure that the process does not L,ecome a protiacting tactic. The court should firstlg autard appropriate c.osts to the other partg to compensate for the delay. secondly the courl :;hould take up aid. comptete the case uithin a fixed time schedule so th,.t the d.elig is auoided. Thirdlg if the application is found to be ntischieuous, 6r friuolotts, or to couer up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heaug costs". (Erzrrphasis added) g. Recently, the Honble Supreme court of India in Shubakc;rant Singh Vs. Abhagarai Singh & others 2, held that the Order-18, Rule-17 of CPC is not intended to enable the parties to recall ,ny witness for further 1 l 2 2o2l; scc online sc 1028 I 9 SK,J examination. The relevant portion of the said Judgment is extracted as under: "8. The said rule, in our opinion, makes it abundantly clear that the ight to put questions to the witness recalled und.er Rute-l7 is giuen only to the court and. euen cross- examination is not ordinarilg permitted on th.e ansuters giuen to such questions, without tLrc leaue of the court. Under that rule therefore, a witness cannot be recalled at the instance of a party for the purpose of examining, cross examinirug or reexamining, and that rule is not intended to serue such purpose, and the purpose for which that rule can be inuoked is the one that is indicated aboue"

9. In this connection, u)e maA refer to tle following obseruations in Sultan Saleh Bin Omer'u. Vijayachand Sirrnal IAIR 1966 AP 295.], which accords with the aboue uiera: "A close reading of this rule makes it obuious that the right under that Rule to put question at any stage or a suit or recall ang uitness /or that purpose, is giuen to the Court. Tlrc court can put questions to the witness recalled, and no cross-examination is ordinarilg allowed upon tlte anstaers to the questions put by the Judge without 1eaue........ ft cannot therefore be. said that an opportunity to a partg to recall any witness for the purpose of examinirE cross- examining or re-examining is gouemed by O. 18, R. 17 CPC (Empho.sts added) \ I l0 SK,J The principle laid down by the Honble Supreme Court ir:. the above Judgment squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. g. In the instant case, the petitioner wanted to recall the witness for the purpose of eliciting certain aspects, which \vere left out by inadvertence, which is nothing but to lilt up the lacunae in the evidence. Further, the suit being of the yeil, 2Ol4 and as it is at the stage of argumt:nts, the trial Court rightly dismissed by the petitiolrs fited by the petitioner and it does not warrant any in [erference bY this Court.

10. Accordingly, both the C.R.Ps are dismissed as devoicl of merits. There shall be no order as to costs. iPending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand. closed. .^ SD/-B.REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 /ffRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER One Fair Co (For py to the Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Sarath His Lordship kind Perusal)

1. Thr: Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bhongir. 2. 11 l-R -CoPies \ To, I I I ! I I I I I i I \ ComPanY Affairs, New Delhi

3. One cc to The Under secretary, Union of lndia Ministry of Law, Justice and 4. one cc to tne Secretary, Telangana Advocates.Association Library' High court for the State of Telangana, Hign court Buildings at Hyderabad'

5. one CC to Sri' Katepalli Sai Sashi Yadav, Advocate [oPUC] 6. Two CD CoPies DL / ABK o r. I I t t HIGH COURT DATED:261O9t2025 \ COMMON C)RDER c. a 1S t ?I JAil 2O[ CRP.No.32li6 and 3324 ot 2025 t ri' CRPs ARrE DISMISSED AS DEVOID OF MERITS 0l