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
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.
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.
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
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
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).
2011 AIR SCW 2296
AIR 2013 SC 1849
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
2009 (4) SCC 410
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.
2016 (11) SCC 296
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
