Telangana High Court
Smt. P. Kavitha vs Smt. K. Prasanna on 20 June, 2025
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.1629 of 2025
and
Civil Revision Petition No.1657 of 2025
COMMON ORDER :
Since the issue arising out of the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same and the parties thereto are also same, they are being heard and decided by this Common Order.
2. Civil Revision Petition No.1629 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner / defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to allow the Revision by setting aside the order dated 20.01.2025 in I.A.No.1390 of 2024 in O.S.No.630 of 2015 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar; and consequently to direct the Trial Court to reopen the respondent / plaintiff's evidence and to re-call PW.2, Sri Siddi Reddy Srinivas Reddy, for the limited purpose of confronting him with the contradictory suggestions made in the deposition of PW.1 in C.C.No.304 of 2016.
::2:: PSK,J
crp_1629&1657_2025
3. Likewise, Civil Revision Petition No.1657 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner / defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to allow the Revision by setting aside the order dated 20.01.2025 in I.A.No.1390 of 2024 in O.S.No.630 of 2015 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar; and consequently to direct the Trial Court to reopen the respondent / plaintiff's evidence and to re-call PW.2, Sri Siddi Reddy Srinivas Reddy, for the limited purpose of confronting him with the contradictory suggestions made in the deposition of PW.1 in C.C.No.304 of 2016.
4. Heard Mr.Sandeep Kumar Bodla, learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant in both the Revisions.
5. In Civil Revision Petition No.1629 of 2025, the petitioner / defendant has assailed the order dated 20.01.2025 in I.A.No.1390 of 2024 in O.S.No.630 of 2015, a petition filed by the petitioner / defendant under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, 'the impugned order'), with a prayer to reopen the evidence of PW.2 for the purpose of further cross-examination.
::3:: PSK,J
crp_1629&1657_2025
6. In Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner / defendant had assailed the order dated 20.01.2025 in I.A.No.1391 of 2024 in O.S.No.630 of 2015 (for short, 'the impugned order'), a petition filed by the petitioner / defendant under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with a prayer to recall PW.2 for the purpose of cross-examination.
7. Initially, the suit O.S.No.630 of 2015 has been filed by the respondent / plaintiff under Order VII Rule 26 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 04.03.2015 in respect of the suit schedule property against the petitioner / defendant herein.
8. After service of notice, the petitioner / defendant entered appearance and denied the claim of the respondent / plaintiff categorically denying the execution of the alleged agreement of sale. It is alleged that there was some negotiation which took place between PW.2 (i.e., the respondent / plaintiff's father) and the petitioner / defendant, and since the negotiation did not materialize the advance money paid by the said PW.2 to the petitioner / defendant in respect to the said sale transaction got ::4:: PSK,J crp_1629&1657_2025 forfeited, and on account of non-refund of the amount by the petitioner / defendant, the respondent / plaintiff got registered a criminal case against the petitioner / defendant vide Crime No.99 of 2015 in C.C.No.304 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. However, in the said criminal case, PW.2 was acquitted vide judgment dated 19.02.2020.
9. Meanwhile, in the instant suit, i.e., O.S.No.630 of 2015, the respondent / plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and her brother as PW.2, and after cross- examination the respondent / plaintiff's evidence was closed on 02.07.2024 and the matter was fixed for adducing evidence on the petitioner / defendant's side.
10. In the interregnum, the respondent / plaintiff changed her counsel and engaged a new counsel. The new counsel upon reviewing the case entered appearance and filed I.A.No.1390 of 2024 in O.S.No.630 of 2015 before the Trial Court with a prayer to reopen the evidence of PW.2 by stating that since there are certain discrepancies in the statement, he wanted PW.2 to be recalled and to reopen PW.2's evidence for further cross-examination so as to ::5:: PSK,J crp_1629&1657_2025 confront him with some more questions pertaining to the criminal case wherein PW.2 got acquitted. However, vide the impugned order, the Court below rejected the said application which led to filing of the instant Revisions.
11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant, the PW.2 (brother of respondent / plaintiff) needs to be recalled for cross-examination so as to confront him with some crucial material which could disprove the case of the respondent / plaintiff itself. According to him, the rejection of the said I.A. would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner / defendant so far as his defence is concerned and therefore the Trial Court ought to have allowed the same at least by imposing some costs. According to him, it was never the intention of the petitioner / defendant to protract the proceedings before the Trial Court. He further contended that the petitioner / defendant had not moved the above two I.A.s with ulterior motive to fill up the lacunas; and therefore, prayed for allowing of the Revisions and to re-open the evidence of PW.2 and to recall PW.2 for further cross-examination.
::6:: PSK,J
crp_1629&1657_2025
12. Having heard the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant and on a perusal of the record, it would be relevant at this juncture to consider the fact that the instant Revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India where the scope of interference is only insofar as supervisory jurisdiction is concerned. In the course of testing the veracity of an order passed by the Trial Court, this Court while exercising the supervisory jurisdiction would not sit as an appellate court over the order passed by the Trial court. Rather what can be decided is whether there is any perversity on the findings arrived at by the Trial Court or whether there was any jurisdictional or legal flaw committed by the Trial Court while passing the impugned order.
13. In the instant case, admittedly the suit was filed by the respondent / plaintiff seeking for a specific performance of an agreement of sale. In the said suit which was filed ten years ago, i.e., in the year 2015, the evidence of the respondent / plaintiff itself could be closed only after a period of nine years, i.e., on 02.07.2024, and thereafter the matter stood adjourned for adducing ::7:: PSK,J crp_1629&1657_2025 evidence of petitioner / defendant to 09.07.2024; and from 09.07.2024, the matter got adjourned on various occasions and finally on 14.11.2024, the above two I.A.s were filed by the petitioner / defendant seeking for reopening and recalling of PW.2.
14. Perusal of the impugned orders would go to show that PW.2 was cross-examined at length before the Advocate-Commissioner, and only thereafter the two I.A.s were filed by the petitioner / defendant only on the ground that he did not put certain material questions during the course of the cross-examination, and therefore he wants those material things to be now asked from PW.2 by recalling him and reopening his evidence. It needs to be understood that reopening is not on material subsequently derived or in the light of any subsequent development as such. It is also not the request of the petitioner / defendant that for reopening and recalling of the witness, PW.2, on certain information obtained and gathered subsequently.
15. These very facts would go to show that the petitioner / defendant after having extensively cross-examined PW.2, ::8:: PSK,J crp_1629&1657_2025 discharged him and thereafter the evidence stood closed on the respondent / plaintiff's side, now at this stage the petitioner / defendant comes to the opinion that certain material questions could also have been asked from PW.2 and therefore seeks to recall PW.2 and reopen his evidence, this, in the opinion of this Court, had been rightly rejected by the Trial court as the contentions raised by the petitioner / defendant in the above two I.A.s are purely in a situation where the petitioner / defendant wants to improve upon his case by way of filling up the omissions or filling up of the lacunas. Further, the Trial Court had passed the impugned orders basing upon the judicial precedents. Except for the fact that there was an alleged change in the counsel engaged by the petitioner / defendant, there does not seem to be any other material on the basis of which the recalling and reopening of the evidence of PW.2 has been sought for.
16. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned orders cannot be held to be in any manner bad in law, arbitrary or perverse in the light of the evidence that is available on record. Therefore, the instant Civil Revision Petitions being devoid ::9:: PSK,J crp_1629&1657_2025 of merit deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
17. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these Revisions, shall stand closed.
___________________ P. SAM KOSHY, J Date : 20.06.2025 Ndr