Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 397 (TS)

Nalla Venkata Reddy v. Vankdoth Vinoda

2025-04-23

N.V.SHRAVAN KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : (N.V. SHRAVAN KUMAR, J.) 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. 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 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 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 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/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 , [ 2017 (4) ALT 386 ] relied upon the following paragraph: “8. …. 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 , [ 2017 (4) ALT 386 ] 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.” 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 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 . 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.- (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. ... … … 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 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. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 16 . Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.