Telangana High Court

Nalla Venkata Reddy vs Vankdoth Vinoda on 23 April, 2025

 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR

       CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.44 of 2025
ORDER:

Aggrieved by the order 10.12.2024 passed in

I.A.No.386 of 2024 in O.S.No.145 of 2012 on the file of

the learned Senior Civil Judge at Mahabubabad, the

present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

2. Sri Aravala Sreenivasa Rao, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner.

3. In view of the nature of relief sought in this Civil

Revision Petition, notice to respondents is revoked by

invoking the power of this Court under Article 227 of

Constitution of India.

4. The petitioner and respondents in the present CRP

are plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 7 respectively in

O.S.No.145 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil

Judge at Mahabubabad.

NVSK,J C.R.P.No.44 of 2025

5. As per the averments made in the affidavit it is

submitted that the petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.145 of

2012 before the learned Senior Civil Judge at

Mahabubabad for declaration of title and for rectification

of entries in Revenue records and for consequential

injunction. The pleadings in the aforesaid suit are that

the father of the petitioner was the absolute owner and

possessor of the suit schedule property and after his

death, petitioner's name was mutated as pattedar in the

Revenue records and the petitioner is continuing as

owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

Petitioner's further case is that in the year 2012 some

third parties visited the suit schedule property and later

petitioner came to know that the name of the respondent

No.1 is shown as pattedar and possessor without having

any right and without the knowledge of the petitioner.

6. Respondent No.1 filed written statement in the said

suit stating that respondent No.1 has purchased the land

under an un-registered sale deed and that she is the NVSK,J

absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule

property. It is further submitted that basing on the said

written statement filed by respondent No.1, the petitioner

impleaded respondent Nos.5 to 7 as party-defendants to

the aforesaid suit.

7. It is further submitted that when respondents

forcibly took possession of suit schedule property on

19.02.2017, the petitioner amended the plaint for

recovery of possession also.

8. It is submitted that the petitioner was examined

himself as PW-1 and got examined PW-2 on his behalf

and respondent No.1 was examined as DW-1 and that

when the matter was posted for defendants' side

evidence, petitioner filed I.A.No.386 of 2024 to reopen the

suit for further evidence of petitioner stating that one

important witness has to be examined. The said I.A. was

dismissed on 10.12.2024 by the learned Senior Civil NVSK,J

Judge at Mahabubabad. Aggrieved by the said order,

petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

9. Respondent No.1 filed counter in the said I.A.

stating that the matter is coming up for the evidence of

respondent Nos.2 to 4 / defendant Nos.2 to 4 and the

evidence of respondent No.1 / defendant No.1 has

already been completed. Defendant No.1 submitted that

it was wrongly mentioned by the petitioner that the

learned trial Court has closed the evidence. In fact, the

learned trial Court adjourned the matter on 12.06.2024

at the request of the petitioner for further evidence so

also on 19.06.2024 and finally on 26.06.2024 and when

the petitioner reported 'no further evidence' then only the

learned trial Court adjourned the matter for defendants'

evidence. Defendant No.1 further submitted that her

evidence as DW-1 was concluded and the matter was

coming up for the evidence of defendant Nos.2 to 4 and at

the belated stage, petitioner filed I.A.No.386 of 2024, to

examine one more witness on behalf of petitioner / NVSK,J

plaintiff stating that the said witness is out of station at

the time of evidence, only to drag on the proceedings.

Defendant No.1 also submitted that the petitioner /

plaintiff cannot permit to introduce new witness which

amounts to filling up the lacuna and it will prejudice the

respondents / defendants.

10. Learned Judge while exercising the inherent powers

under Section 151 of C.P.C., and also relying on the

judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Dhatla

Lakshmipathi Raju v. P. Venkata Ramana and another 1,

relied upon the following paragraph:

"8. .... The Courts, facing severe pressure of pendency of cases for long time, cannot be expected to allow applications of this nature thwarting their efforts to dispose of cases as quickly as possible. On the one hand the litigants are critical of abnormal delays in disposal of cases and on the other hand they file applications after applications in pending suits, some of them are wholly needless, at far too belated stages stalling the suit proceedings. This attitude of the parties as well as their counsel need to be changed and sooner it happens it is better for the litigant public."

1 2017 (4) ALT 386 NVSK,J

11. Learned trial Court also held that in the affidavit of

plaintiff, there is no mention with regard to the name of

such person whom the plaintiff sought to be examined

and whose evidence is necessary for conclusion of the

case. Learned Judge also observed that the suit is of the

year 2012 and after completion of plaintiff's side evidence

of DWs.1 to 4 were testified for defendant No.1 side and

the plaintiff failed to mention the name of the proposed

witness and also failed to show the relevancy of the

proposed witness for adjudication of the suit and in the

light of the principles of ratio laid down in Dhatla

Lakshmipathi Raju's, dismissed the said I.A.No.386 of

2024.

12. In the grounds urged in the present Civil Revision

Petition petitioner/plaintiff submitted that the learned

trial Court erred in dismissing the application on the

ground that the petitioner filed the application at a

belated stage and failed to show sufficient grounds to re-

open the suit and that an important witness can be NVSK,J

examined at any stage of the case and the learned trial

Court ought to have given an opportunity to the

petitioner to lead evidence as the suit is filed for

declaration of title and for recovery of possession and

that substantial rights of the petitioner are involved.

13. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

Perused the record.

14. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner in the

Affidavit in I.A.No.386 of 2024 in O.S.No.145 of 2012 did

not specify the name of the witness and how his evidence

would be relevant and necessary in the said suit. Order

XVI of CPC, 1908 deals with 'summoning and attendance

of witness' and mandates the procedure to be followed by

the parties to the suit. The relevant provisions are

extracted for reference:

"Order XVI of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Summoning and Attendance of Witnesses

1. List of witnesses and summons to witnesses.-

NVSK,J

(1) On or before such date as the Court may appoint, and not later than fifteen days after the date on which the issues are settled, the parties shall present in Court a list of witnesses whom they propose to call either to give evidence or to produce documents and obtain summonses to such persons for their attendance in Court.

(2) A party desirous of obtaining any summons for the attendance of any person shall file in Court an application stating therein the purpose for which the witness is proposed to be summoned.

(3) The Court may, for reasons to be recorded, permit a party to call, whether by summoning through Court or otherwise, any witness, other than those whose names appear in the list referred to in sub-rule (1), if such party shows sufficient cause for the omission to mention the name of such witness in the said list.

... ... ...

14. Court may of its own accord summon as witnesses strangers to suit.-

Subject to the provisions of this Code as to attendance and appearance and to any law for the time being in force, where the Court at any time thinks it necessary 1[to examine any person, including a party to the suit] and not called as a witness by a party to the suit, the Court may, of its own motion, cause such person to be summoned as a witness to give evidence, or to produce any document in his possession, on a day to be appointed, and may examine him as a witness or require him to produce such document."

The trial Court closed the plaintiff's evidence and

posted the matter for defendants' side evidence and at NVSK,J

this juncture the petitioner at a belated stage now

intends to examine one more witness on his behalf

without following the procedure contemplated under

Order XVI of CPC, 1908. Such an attempt by the

petitioner appears to be only to fill up the lacunas and

procrastinate the suit proceedings.

15. In view of the same, the impugned order is a

reasoned order, well founded and it does not require any

interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory

powers under Article 227 of Constitution of India.