Telangana High Court
Padam Yettamma vs Smt.Chavva Mamatha on 20 June, 2025
Author: T. Vinod Kumar
Bench: T. Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3701 and 3767 of 2023 ORDER:
Since, the parties are one and the same in the Civil Revision Petitions they are being 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 I.A. No.44 of 2022 in O.S. No. 253 of 2022 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-Cum- II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge- Cum-Principal Family Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, At Kukatpally (for short 'the trial Court').
2. The revision petitioners herein are the petitioners in the underlying interlocutory 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 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order dated. 20.09.2023 passed in I.A. No.288 of 2022 filed by the petitioners herein under Order XIII Rule 10 of C.P.C seeking call for records of the suit in O.S. No. 928 of 2014 to peruse the same 2 for further cross examination with regard to the documents of ex- parte Decree and Judgment dated 05-11-2014 in O.S. No. 928 of 2014.
4. C.R.P. No. 3767 of 2023 is filed aggrieved by the order dated. 20.09.2023 passed in I.A. No.44 of 2022 filed by the petitioners herein under Order XVIII Rule 17 of C.P.C to recall PW.1 for further cross examination.
5. Heard, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for respondent, and perused the record.
6. The case of the petitioners herein is that they are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, having purchased it through a registered Sale Deed dated 26.02.2004 from Smt. Sulochana; that since the date of purchase, they have been in continuous, peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property; that the respondent herein basing her claim on an unregistered sale deed purportedly executed by one Sri John Devid Pitter on 10.01.2014, filed a suit vide O.S. No. 253 of 2022 (old No. 510 of 2016) for perpetual injunction against the petitioners.
3
7. The petitioners contend that respondent filed a suit for specific 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 filed vide O.S. No. 928 of 2014 that the original title 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 ex parte decree in O.S. No. 928 of 2014 only after changing their counsel and thereafter applied for certified copies in O.S. No. 928 of 2014 but were not provided with Exhibits A2 and A3 marked therein. As such, the Petitioners filed I.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 PW1 and I.A. No. 44 of 2022 to recall PW1 for further cross-examination.
4
9. The Petitioners contend that the they invoked the provisions of Order XIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the trial court to summon the complete record of O.S. No. 928 of 2015 for perusal and proper adjudication of the present case stating that the records of O.S. No. 928 of 2015, particularly Exhibits A2 and A3 are essential for the just and effective adjudication of the present suit. Though the Petitioners have procured partial certified copies of the record, crucial exhibits have not been furnished despite due efforts. The said exhibits are necessary to establish the fraudulent conduct of the respondent in securing an ex parte decree without impleading the petitioners i.e. the true and lawful owners of the suit schedule property.
10. The petitioners contend that the Trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 44 solely relying on the orders in I.A. Nos. 45 and 288, without independently appreciating the merits of the recall application. The Petitioners further contend that the entire sequence of events points to suppression, collusion, and grave miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court.
11. Per contra, the respondent contends that she is the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the suit schedule property 5 bearing Plot No. D/122 situated 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 08.03.1983; and that she entered into a sale transaction with her vendor on 10.01.2014 for ₹8,00,000/- and an unregistered sale deed was executed.
12. The respondent 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 2015. 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 property, installed a name board, and has been in peaceful possession since then.
13. The respondent also contends that in May 2016, the petitioners 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 approached the concerned 6 police, however the police expressed their inability stating that the matter is of civil nature and directed to approach the concerned civil court.
14. The Trial Court on submissions made by both the parties and on perusal of the material on record, had dismissed the underlying interlocutory applications, stating that the document sought to call for is already available on record vide Ex. A6.
15. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.
16. It is trite law that an application for recalling of evidence should not allowed for the mere asking unless the court considers the same was made for a bona fide reason (See: K.K. Velusamy Vs. N. Palanisamy1). It goes without saying that the power conferred on a Court to recall witness should be used sparingly and for compelling reasons (See: Bagai Construction Thr. Its Proprietor Mr. Lalit Bagai Vs. Gupta Building Material Store2).
1 2011 AIR SCW 2296 2 AIR 2013 SC 1849 7
17. The Supreme Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate3, held that the power conferred under Order 18 Rule 17 to recall evidence is to be used sparingly, and that such a power was primarily conferred to enable the Court to clarify any doubts with regard to the evidence led by the parties. The said power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined.
18. It is settled that the Court is vested with discretion under Order XVIII Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to recall a witness who has already been examined. However, 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 it 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 3 2009 (4) SCC 410 8 cogent reasons, while ensuring that the trial is not unnecessarily protracted. (See: Ram Rati Vs. Mange Ram & Ors 4).
19. It is pertinent to note that the petitioners are claiming title over the suit schedule property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 26.02.2004, whereas the respondent/defendant claims his title based on a court-executed sale deed dated 25.04.2015. The documents marked as Exhibits A2 and A3, being subsequent to the petitioners' sale deed, have no bearing on their claim. Therefore, filing of the underlying interlocutory application, based on such subsequent documents, serves no purpose other than to delay the proceedings.
20. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that the and trial Court had rightly dismissed the underlying applications inasmuch as the document sought to call for by the petitioners i.e. Ex. A2 and A3 is already available on record vide Ex. A6 and the impugned orders does not merit interference by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4 2016 (11) SCC 296 9
21. For the above-mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the orders of the trial Court do not suffer from any infirmity or error.
22. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are devoid of merit and dismissed. The docket orders dated 20.09.2023 I.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.
___________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 20.06.2025 MRKR/VSV