The High Court · 2025

Petition under Articre 227 of the constitution of India aggrieved by the docket order dated 20t9t2023 passed in t.A.No44 oI 2022 in O.si."ruo.zi;i ir ioZi-(Ow os.No.510 of 20 r6 on the fire of the principar Junior civir .lrog"-",ir-M Addifiinrr Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchar fvrarkajgiri District, Uppar, a"t Le.Ntagai. Between: --'- 1 2 lg!a1-Y9-t!amma, W/o. Late yeltaiah, Aged about 75 years, Occ_Nil, R/o. rrlan.rdl, -l/id;;_iiil;;;; H No.2-B-1 98, Kamunikatha, BhongirTow"n- inJ - District. Padam^ Balram, S/o. Late yellaiah, about 4g years, Occ_Business, R/o. ,nt, Kamunikatha, Bhonsirrown ,no 'irrlnir"i - ),;J;;i_Bi";;;i BlXft3,.u AND ...Petitionr:rs/Defendants lpt plawa Mamatha, Wo. Srinivas, Aged about 36 years, Or:c_Housewife. Rt o. 1 -.6 -212t84 t 1 31 t N c. parsisutta, ilyj",rtJ,,.il 6; ri;i ciil' i;ffi ;'""' Ch.Srinivas, S/o. Ramutu Rgei about?0 v.rii'olC El.iness, R/o.. 1 -6-21216411 31/A/C, parsiguita HyOeraOad. - - ... RespcrndenUPlaintiff lA NO: 1 oF 2023 Petition under Section 15'r cpc praying that in the circJmstarnces stated in theaffidavit fired in support^orJlg nel1i^on,ir,.-Higr' court may be preased to stay all further proceedings in o.S.No. 2s3 of 2022" on the fire tn., court ot ine l1i1cig1t ..l31ior civir Judge-cum-rv Additionar Metroporitan Magistrate, rr,l"o"r,rr_ Malkajgiri District, Uppat. at L.B. Nagar. 'ct counsel for the Petitioner(s):sRr. MADHUSUDHAN REDDY BHUREDDy Counsel for the Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KIJMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3701 and 3767 of 2023 ORDER: Since, the parties are one and the sarne in the Civil Revision Petitions they are bcing disposed of-this common Order

1. These Civil Revision Petitions are directed against the order dated 20.09.2023 passed in I.A. No.288 of 2022 and l.A. No.44 of 2022 in O.S. No. 253 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-Curn- II Additional Metropolitan Sessions .Iudge- Curn-Principal liamily Judge, Medchat Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpally (for short 'the trial Court')

2. The revision petitioners hercin are the petitionels in the underlying interlocutoly applications and defendants in the suit filed by the respondent herein vide O.S. No. 253 of 2022 for perpetual injunction

3. C.R.P. No. 3701 ol 202.1 is filed aggrieved by the order dated. 20.09.2023 passed in I.A. No.288 of 2022 filed by the petitioners helein under Ordel XIII Rule 10 of C.P.C seeking call for records of the suit in O.S. No. 928 of 20L4 to peruse the same for further cross examination with regard to the documents of er- parteDecree and Judgment dated 05-11-2014 in O,S. N,t. 928 of 20t4.

4. C.R.P. No. 3767 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order dated.20.09.2023 passed in I.A. No.44 ol 2022 file<t by the petitioners [rerein under Order XVIII Rule l7 of C.p.C to recall PW. I for further cross examination

5. Fleard, learr-red Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for respondent, and pen-rsed the record

6. The case of the petitioners herein is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suil schedule F,ropel.ty, having purchased it through a registered Sale Dee,l dated

26.02.2004 lrom Smt. Sulochana; that since the datc.of p"rrchase, they have been in continuous, peaceful possession and enjoyrnent of the property; that the respondent herein baring her claim on an unregistered sale deed purportedly executed b1, ens Sri Johr.r Devid Pitter on 10.0i.2014, frled a suit vicle C).S. No. 253,ot 2022 (old No. 510 of 2016) for perpeturrl injunction against the petitioners. 3

7. The petitioners contend that respondent filed a suit for specilrc performance vide O.S. No. 928 of 2014 against the said one John Devid Pitter and managed to obtain an ex parte decree on 05.01.2014; that the Respondent claimed in the plaint frled vide O.S. No. 928 of 2Ol4 that the original litle deed dated

08.03.1983 was misplaced, which casts serious doubt on the genuineness of the transaction; that the Petitioners despite being the actual owners, were not impleaded in that suit; that the decree appears to have been Fraudulently obtained; and that based on the said decree, a sale deed was executed in favour of the respondent on 25.04.2015.

8. The Petitioners contend that they came to know about the e;r parte decree in O.S. No. 928 of 2014 only after changing their counsel and thereafter applied for ccrtified copiesiin O'S' No' 928 of 2014 but were not provided rvith Exhibits A.2 and ,A.3 mariied tlrercin. As such, the Petitioners filed l.A. No. 288 of 2022 in O.S. No. 510 of 2016 under Order XIII Rule 10 CPC to call for the records and I.A. No. 45 of 2022 to reopen the evidence of PWl and I.A. No. 44 of 2022 to recall PWl for further cross-examination. 4

9. The Petitioners contend that the they invoked tht: pro'zisions of Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure', befilre the trial courl to summon the complete record of O.S. No. )28 of 2015 for perusal and proper adjudication of the ;'reserLt case stating that the records ol O.S. No. 928 of 2015, pa(i:ularly Exhibits A2 and .A3 are essential lor the just and effective a judication of the present suit. Though the Petitioners have procured partial certified copies of the record, crur:ial exhibits have not beert lurnished despite due efforts. The said exhibits are necessary to establish the fraudulent conduct ol the rt:spondent in securing an ex parte decree without impleading th(r petitioners i.e. the true and lawful owners of the suit schedule propefty'

10. Thc petitioners contend that the Trial Court disniissed I.A' No. 44 solely relying on the orders in [.A. Nos. 15 arrd 288, without independently appreciating the merits ol the recall application. The Petitioners further contend thar. the entire sequence of events points to suppression, collusion, an<l grave miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court. ll. Per contt'a, the respondent contends that she is the absolule owner and peaceful possessor of the suit schedr-rlc propefty 5 bearing Plot No. D/122 srtuated at pervathapur Village, Ghalkesar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, admeasuring 320 square yards; that the said property originally belonged to her vendor, Sri John Lionel Devid Pitter, who purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 08.0i. t98l; and that she entered into a sale transaction with her vendor on 10.01.2014 for tg,00,000/- and an unregistered sale deed was executed. i2. The lespondent further contends that as registration was not possible due to a temporary government ban on the survey number, and after the ban was lifted in May 2014, as the vendor avoided registration despite a legal notice dated 02.06.2014, forced the respondent to file a suit for specific performance vide O.S. No.928 of 20 15. On the said suit being decreed, the Court executed a registered sale deed on 25.04.2015 in her favour and an being put in possession, she fenced the propefty, installed a name board, and has been in peacelul possession since then.

13. The respondent also contends that in May 2016, the I petit{oners unlawfully attempted to interfere with her possession and again on 08.09.2016 the petitioners tried to remove the fencing with the aid of outsiders; that approachecl the concerned 6 police, however the police expressed their inability stating that the matter is of civit nature and directed to approac;h the concemed civil court.

14. The Trial Court on submissions made by both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, had dir;misssd the underlying intellocutory applications, stating that the doc;umet.tt sought to call for is already available on record vide trx Ati'

15. I have taheu note of the respcctive contentions urgcd'

16. It is trite law that an application for recalling of evidence should not allowed lor the mere asking unless the cortrl considers the same was tnade for a bona fide reason (See: ('r(' Ve'tusanty Vs. N. Ptlanisamyt)- lt goes without saying that. the power confer-red on a Coutt to recall witness should be used sparingly and for compelling reasons (See: Bagai Conslruclion 1hr' lts Proprietor ,l[r, Latit Bagai Vs. Gupta Builttittg fulateritl Store2). I I 201 I AIR SC\I'. 2296 ' AIR 20l3 sc t849 7

17. The Supreme Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Shuadchantlra Prabhakar Gogate3, held that the power conlerred under Order 18 Rule 17 to recall evidence is to be used sparingly, and that such a porver was primarily conferred to enable the Court to clarifi any doubts with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said power is not intended to be used to filI up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined.

18. lt is settled that the Cou( is vested witl-r discretion under Order XVIII Rule l7 of the Code of Civil Procedure to reoall a witness who has already been examined. I-Iowever, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and not in an unduly liberal manner. Mere change of counsel does not constitute a valid ground to recall a witness for further cross-examination, nor is i1 permissible to recall a witness merely to elaborate upon points allegedly left out during prior examination and if a Court decides to invoke this provision, the same should be done for ' zoor 1+1 scc + ro 8 :..; cogent reasons, while ensuring that the trial is not urLnece;sarily protracted. (See: l?am Rati Vs. Mange Ram & Orsa).

19. it is peflinent to note that the petitioners are claimirLg title over the suit schedule property by virtue ofa registert:d sale deed dated 26.02.2004, whereas the respondent/defendan'- claims his title based on a court-executed sale deed dated 25.0'1'2015' The documents trarked as Exhibits A.2 and .A3, being subseqrrent to the petitioners' sale deed, have no bearing on r.heir claim' Therefore, filing of the underlying interlocutory application, based on such subsequent documents, serves no ptttposr: other than to delay the proceedings.

20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Courl i, of tjl" vierv that the and trial Courl had rightty dismissed th: underlying applications inasmuch as the document sought to ,call lol by the petitioners i.e. Ex. ,{2 and A.3 is already available on reccrd vide Ex. 46 and the impugned orders does not merit intelfert:nce by this Court iu exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction confered under Afticle 227 of the Constitution of India. '2016(Il)scc296 9

21. For the above-mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the orders of the trial Courl do not suffer from any infimity or error.

22. Accordingty, the Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and dismissed. The docket orders dated 20.09.2023 l.A. No.288 of 2022 and I.A. No.44 of 2022 in O.S. No. 253 of 2022 are sustained. No order as to costs.

23. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed. No order as to costs. /ITRUE COPY// SD/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sech#orrrcEn To, 1 Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Uppal' at.L B .Nagar- . The Principal Junior Civil Judge-Cum-lV-Additional Metropolitan Magistrate' . ir"" ic't.-5ri ri,iiorrusuonjn idoav anureoov,-Advocate [oPUC] 2 J Two CD CoPies (t NVB/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 I .r::,'i ri-,,,|;' l_':- ,t .:' : '.'- - 2lt 5gp 2n5 ORDER CRP.Nos. 3701 and 3767 OF 2023 DISMISSING THE CRPs WITHOUT COST ( +- ) 6 j-\