Smt. Balamani Yadav vs V.Venkateshwara Rao
2025 Latest Caselaw 4135 Tel

Telangana High Court

Smt. Balamani Yadav vs V.Venkateshwara Rao on 20 June, 2025

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

                 C.R.P.No.1184 & 1193 OF 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Ms.Tejovoni Meghoraj, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

Perused the record.

2. The present civil revision petitions have been filed assailing

the common order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the learned

I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

Kukatpally in I.A.Nos.12 and 13 of 2025 in O.S.No.1252 of 2022.

3. Vide the impugned order, the learned trial Court has

decided I.A.Nos.12 and 13 of 2025, both of which were filed for

reopening of the evidence of the plaintiff side and to permit

plaintiff No.2 to lead further fresh evidence as P.Ws.3 and 4.

4. Both these applications have been since decided by a

common order and have been challenged by way of separate civil

revision petitions, this Court would proceed to decide the two

civil revision petitions by this common order.

5. Perusal of the pleadings and the materials available on

record, it is clearly reflected that the evidence of plaintiffs P.Ws.1

and 2 was recorded and closed in the year 2020 itself. Thereafter,

the defendants also have entered witness box and have recorded

their evidence and the defendants' evidence was closed long back.

Subsequently, the matters stood posted for arguments of the

parties. The pleadings of these civil revision petitions would

reflect that the plaintiffs themselves filed written arguments on

19.11.2024 and had supplemented their written arguments by

again submitting written arguments on 09.12.2024 and the matter

now stands posted for judgment in the said case. It is at this

juncture that the plaintiffs filed the present interlocutory

applications i.e., I.A.Nos.12 and 13 of 2025 for the reliefs stated

above.

6. The aforementioned factual matrix would clearly indicate

that it was only at the fag end of the trial that the plaintiffs

realized that there was some evidence that could had been lead by

them to improve upon their case and demolish the evidence of the

defendants which has been already brought on record.

7. Given the said factual matrix, this Court does not find any

strong case calling for any interference to the impugned order.

8. The civil revision petitions are thus devoid of merits and

are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J

20.06.2025 Lrkm