K.Valarmathi and Others v. Kumaresat

1. Puttapaka Srinivas, S/o-late Raialingam @ Rajaiah aged about 40 years, Occ.Business. R/o.H.No.5-6-502, Kbpuwada, lvlaruthinagar, Karimnagar'' ..Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff

2. Kalva Narsaiah, S/o Komuraiah, aged about 45 years, Rio-Behind MM Building Apartment, Near Collectorate, Karimnagar' 3- K Narsimha Reddy, S/o.Rajareddy, aged about 53 years, R/o.H.No 1-25, Bommakal Village, Karimnagar Mandal and Distnct.

4. V Survanaravana Reddv. S/o.Sri Bhoom Reddy, aged 53 years, R/o-Dr' Bhoorirreddy'Hospital, Karirnnagar. (Respondents 2lo 4 arc not necessary parties to this CRi']) ...RESPONDENTSI Respondents/ Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 stay all further proceedings in o.s.No.44 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge ai Karimnagar, pending disposat of the above C R.P-, Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. MOHD MOIN AHMED QUADRI Counsel for the Respondent No.l : NONE APPEAREo CIVIL REVISION PETMO N NO: 3326 OF 2023 Petition Under Adide 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 04'10-2023 in r.A.No. 424 of 2023 in o.S.No. 44 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. Between: Shak Abdul Aziz, S/o.Shaik Abdulla aged about 62 years, Occ.Business, R/o. H. No. 1 -5-503, Ameernagar, Karimnagar.- ...PETITIONER/ petitioner / D-1 AND Puttapaka Srinivas, S/o.late Rajalingam @ Raiaiah aged about 40 years, Occ. Bu siness, R/o H. N o. 5-6-5C[2, K.apuwada, ivlaruthinagar, farimiagai' ..Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff 2 3 4 Kalva Narsaiah S/o.Komuraiah, aged about 45 years. R/o.Behind MM Building Apartment, Near Collectoiate, Karimnalar. puttapaka Srinivas K.Narsimha Reddy. S/o.Rajareddy, aged about 53 years, R/o.H.No.1_25, Bommakal Village. Karimnagar Mandal and Drstrict. V Suryanarayan" Rulqy. S/o.Sri Bhoom Reddy, aged 53 years, R/o,Dr_ tshoomreddy Hospital, Karimnagar. (Respondents ? b a are not nedessary pa(ies to this CRp) ...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents/ Defendants [,A NO; 1 OF 2023 Petition under sectron 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the_affrdavrt frled rn support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedrngs in o.S.No.44 of 2016 on th; fite of the 6ou.t of the princrpat Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, pending disposal of the above C_R_p., Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. MOHD MO|N AHMED QUAORI Counsel for the Respondent: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDIIAN RAO CwIL R.EVISION PEIITIOI{ NOs.3S25 and 3326 OF 2023 CIOMMONORDE.R: The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of Constttution of India assailing the orders in I.A.Nos'423 and 424 of 2023 in O.S.No.44 of 2016, dated O4.10.2023 passed by the Iearned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, wherein the applications filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 1 to reopen the evidence of respondent No. l-plaintiff and to recall PW- 1 are dismissed.

2. Petitioner herein is the petitioner-defendant No' 1, respondent No.l herein is respondent No.l-plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the respondent Nos'2 to 4-defendant Nos.2 to 4 in I.A.Nos.423 and 424 of 2023 in O.S.No.44 of 2016'

3. The grounds in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and for the sake of convenience, grounds of C.R.P.No.3325 of 2023 are taken up. Learned counsel for the petilioner submits that the learned 4. trial Court erred in dismissing the applications liled by the petitioner, seeking [o reopen the evidence of respondent No'l- plaintiff and to recall PW-l for fair adjudication of the case' The evidence of the parties is not closed and the suit is coming up for \ ) 2 evidence of defendant Nos.2 to 4 (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein), Learned trial Court erred in dismissing the applications without valid reason and the previous counsel could not properly examine PW- 1 . Learned tnal Court cannot throw. out the applications at threshold stage wirhout proper appreciation of evidence of either side, hence the ordcrs passed by the learned trial Court in both tlle Civil Rer.ision Per.itions arc liable to bc sci aside.

5. Notice got issued to the respondent No.l_ptaintiff is served but none appeared.

6. Power of the High Court under Article 222 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courls and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparinglv exerciseci in cases where errors are apparent on the face ol rccord, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresat - 2025 SCC Online SC 9gS).

7. Respondent No. l-plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual Injunction against the petitioner-defendant No.l and defendant Nos.2 to 4(respondent Nos.2 1o 4 herein), restraining the defenda,ts therein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the s,ritru6h.dul. property i.e., land to an extent of l2lo Sq.yards in ) Sy.No.37lB, situated at Chaman of Karimnagar Mandal and District two items 1'e'' Bommakal GramPanchaYat of Ra';vt The suit schedule item No.I and consists of property item No.ll

8. Petitioner-defendant No 1 has hled common allidavit in I.A.Nos. 423 and 424 ol 2023 in O'S'No'44 of 2016 stating t]lat he has changed his earlier counsel by name Sri Ajay Chakravarthy' drle Lo non-cooperation u'ith him and also rvith ttre learned trial Court. Earlier counsel Sri Ajay Chakravarthy has not properly PuttaPaka Srinivas as Per his cross examined PW- I instructions, he lost material questions to be put to PW- 1 , it is just and necessary to Teopen the evidence of respondent No' 1-plaintiff and recall PW-1 for further cross examination' 9. Respondent No' l-plaintiff has hled common counter and contended that there is no explanation given by the petitloner- defendant No'l in the athdavit to reopen the case and to recall t.e., Pw-1 'l

10. Learned trial Court by both the Parties has after considering dismissed bottr order dated 04' 1O'2O23' which common present Civil Revision Petitions' the contentions raised tlre aPPlicatiots uide is imPugned in the 4 I 1. On careful reading of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, which goes to show that his earlier counsel has not examined pW-1 as per his instructions. Aflidavit is silent on what point the petitioner intends to further cross examine pW_ i and the rnaterial particulars are missing in thc affidavit. I-earned trial Court has rightly dismissed the applications filed by the petitioner by assigning cogent rea son s. No. 1 L2. This Court is of the vie\. that the petitioner_detendant has not made out any case to in terlere u,ith the orders passed by the learned trial Court in view of the fact that powers of High Court under Article 222 of Constitution o[ India are very limited as stated supra in paragraph No.6. There are no merits in the Civil Revision Petitions and they are iiable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision petitions are dismissed There shall be no orcler as to costs. Interim orders if any stand vacated shall stand closed. Miscellaneous petition/s //TRUE COPY// SD/- N SRIHARI DEPUTY REGIS SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karrmnagar 2. One CC to SRt tt/OHD MOtN AHMED eUADRI Advocate [OpUC] i.. 3. Two CD Copies 4, kul/PSI I I o,J nR THE T4 Y ,4-t 2 3 tlnq rnll {'\ L) : .(: o4r1u1ftl .i-.-_ HIGH COURT OATEDi20t11tZO2S COMMON ORDER CRP.No.3325 AND 3326 of 2023 DISMTSSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS WITHOLTI'COSTS 0'r yV b