Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1550 (TS)

Jangala Krishna Murthy v. Darla Manoj

2025-11-18

T.MADHAVI DEVI

body2025
ORDER : T. MADHAVI DEVI, J. This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dt.14.08.2025 in I.A.No.13 of 2025 in O.S.No.56 of 2014 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Sathupalli. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff who filed the suit in O.S.No.56 of 2014 for declaration and recovery of part consideration on the basis of an alleged unregistered agreement of sale dt.08.06.2013. Defendants No.1, 2, 5 and 8 have filed their written statements separately. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed I.A.No.13 of 2025 praying that respondent No.2/defendant No.8, the Senior Divisional Manager, I.O.C., Vijayawada presently Senior Manager (Retail Sales) Warangal D.O., should be summoned to adduce his evidence before the Court as D.W.2 or as a court-witness. In the application, it is stated that defendant No.8 was impleaded into the suit subsequently and that defendant No.8 has filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint and also stating that he is not a proper and necessary party to the suit and that the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while recording the evidence of D.W.1, the counsel for respondent No.8 also cross- examined him on 20.06.2025, wherein D.W.1 admitted the registered lease deed between defendants No.1 to 8 and the alienation of suit schedule properties by him vide registered gift deed in favour of his wife and registered sale deed in favour of defendants No.3 to 6 with the consent of defendant No.8 only. It is stated that D.W.1 also admitted that till the year 2018 only, stocks were raised in the names of adhoc dealers. It is submitted that neither the registered lease deed vide Document No.1966 of 1999 nor the documents under which the stocks were purchased were filed before the Court. It is submitted that after completion of evidence of D.W.1, defendant No.8 had requested time to adduce their evidence and the matter was posted to 30.06.2025 and the suit was posted for arguments from 30.06.2025 to 10.07.2025 as the counsel for defendant No.8 reported no evidence on his behalf. It is submitted that after completion of evidence of D.W.1, defendant No.8 had requested time to adduce their evidence and the matter was posted to 30.06.2025 and the suit was posted for arguments from 30.06.2025 to 10.07.2025 as the counsel for defendant No.8 reported no evidence on his behalf. It is stated that during the course of the cross-examination of D.W.1, he admitted the registered lease deed between defendants No.1 and 8 and the alienations of the schedule properties which were made by him through registered gift deed in favour of his wife by name Darla Swethachandra and registered sale deed in favour of defendants No.3 to 6 with the consent of defendant No.8 only. It is stated that D.W.1 admitted that during the subsistence of registered lease deed, he alienated the entire schedule property with the consent of I.O.C./defendant No.8 in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 and that till the year of 2018 they raised stock purchases from defendant No.8 and defendant No.5 Vanama Kiran Kumar was appointed as adhoc dealer and the same was narrated in the chief examination of D.W.1. It is stated that in the written statement of D.W.8, he mentioned the significance of the registered lease deed and the adhoc dealer appointment from 05.10.2019 for a period of two years under different names of adhoc dealers without placing any valid document to prove the same and without disclosing the details of stock purchase and that both defendants No.1 and 8 have intentionally suppressed the vital documents before the Court and therefore, the petitioner prayed the Court to summon defendant No.8 for giving his evidence before the Court. The same was opposed by defendant No.1 by filing a counter affidavit stating that defendant No.8 is only a proforma party and that the petitioner has no prima facie case or balance of convenience in his favour. It is stated that as it is an old matter pertaining to the year 2014 and that the petitioner has filed this application only to delay the trial. Defendant No.8 also has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and further that there is no relief sought against defendant No.8 in the suit and that he has not chosen to lead any evidence in the said suit and stated the same before the Court. Defendant No.8 also has filed a counter affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and further that there is no relief sought against defendant No.8 in the suit and that he has not chosen to lead any evidence in the said suit and stated the same before the Court. It is stated that the petitioner/plaintiff is not entitled to compel the respondents to lead evidence. Taking the same into consideration, the trial Court has dismissed the application of the plaintiff and challenging the same, the present CRP is filed. 3. The trial Court has observed that even when defendant No.1 admitted some of the case facts in his cross-examination as D.W.1 about the registered lease deed between defendants No.1 and 8 and alienations of the schedule properties in favour of defendants No.2 to 6 through registered gift deed and registered sale deeds with the consent of defendant No.8, the said alienations occurred during the subsistence of registered lease agreement in between defendants No.1 and 8, but those transactions are the internal matters amongst them and are in no way concerned with the transaction in this suit in between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is further observed that the plaintiff intends to collect some evidence to substantiate his case basing on the evidence to be adduced by defendant No.8 which cannot be permitted in the eye of law. The trial Court relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited and others Vs. Susru Sea Foods , [2005(1) ALD 464] and in the case of Mohammed Abdul Wahid Vs. Nilofer and another , [ 2023 INSC 1075 ] to come to this conclusion. Challenging the same, the present CRP is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the suit is filed for declaration of title and specific performance of an unregistered agreement of sale dt.08.06.2013 and that D.W.1 in his evidence has admitted execution of registered gift deed in favour of his wife by name Darla Swethachandra vide document No.1370 of 2014 dt.29.04.2014 and subsequent execution of registered sale deeds in favour of defendants No.3 to 6. It is stated that defendant No.8 had reported that there is no evidence from their part, but during the cross-examination defendant No.1, it was suggested that there was a registered lease deed vide Document No.1966 of 1999 on the file of SRO, Madhira and through the same, he has conveyed title and possession to third parties through registered documents dt.29.04.2014 and 06.07.2015. It is stated that these statements during the evidence of D.W.1 are categorical admissions and therefore, the evidence of defendant No.8 is very important for adjudication of the issue and therefore, the trial Court ought to have considered the same and ought to have directed defendant No.8 to give evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chowdamma (D) by LR and another Vs. Venkatappa (D) by LRs and another, 2025 INSC 1038 : Civil Appeal No.11330 of 2011 dt.25.08.2025 in support of his contention that in civil proceedings, particularly where the facts lie exclusively within the personal knowledge of the party, the refusal to enter the witness box carries grave evidentiary consequences and such denials when measured against the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the scales unambiguously tilt in favour of the plaintiffs. 6. He further placed reliance upon the decision of A.P. High Court (as it then was) in the case of Kosuru Kalinga Maharaju Vs. Kosuru Kaikamma , 1999(6) ALD 789 : 2000(2) ALT 409 : CRP No.4548 of 1999 dt.30.10.1999 in support of his contention that under Order 16 Rule 14 of CPC, the Court can summon any party to the suit as a Court witness after satisfying itself about its necessity. He therefore prayed for setting aside of the impugned order or to direct the trial Court to summon defendant No.8 to the witness box. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, relied upon the averments made in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner cannot seek a direction to defendant No.8 to adduce evidence before the Court as D.W.2 as defendant No.8 has already filed a written statement and has reported that he has no evidence to adduce in the suit. It is stated that the petitioner has filed this petition only to prolong the trial and to fill up the lacunae in his case which is impermissible in law. It is stated that the petitioner has filed this petition only to prolong the trial and to fill up the lacunae in his case which is impermissible in law. It is stated that defendant No.8 is only a formal/proforma party to the suit and no relief has been claimed against defendant No.8 and therefore, the I.A. was rightly dismissed by the trial Court. 8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court finds that defendant No.8 has been made as a party respondent by order of the Court and that defendant No.8 has filed a written statement denying the averments in the plaint and also placing reliance upon the registered lease deed vide Document No.1966 of 1999. The written statement was filed on 30.09.2021 and the plaintiff has not chosen to require the said document to be filed before the Court. It is only after the evidence of D.W.1 is recorded that the petitioner has filed this application. When defendant No.8 has not reported any evidence and has also not chosen to give any evidence by entering the witness box, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff cannot seek his evidence to be recorded. If there is any evidence given by defendant No.8 which needs rebuttal by way of cross-examination by the petitioner/plaintiff, then only he may be called to the witness box or in such circumstances, if the said witness refuses to give any evidence, an adverse inference may be drawn in respect of the said evidence. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the case before this Court. 9. In view of the same, this Court does not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this CRP shall stand closed.