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
