SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 182

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
G. RADHA RANI, J
M/s Narne Estates Pvt Ltd - Appellant
Versus
N Gopal Naidu and Others - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition Nos.1009 & 1018 of 2023
Decided On : 09-06-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : B RAVEENDRA BABU

A party can summon an opposite party for cross-examination under CPC, and adverse inferences may be drawn if a party fails to testify, reinforcing the necessity of cross-examination.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 151, Order XVI Rule 2 - Cross-examination of a party - The petitioner sought to summon the defendant for cross-examination, alleging misappropriation of funds and fraudulent activities related to property ownership. The trial court dismissed the applications, asserting that it was not an exceptional case to summon the defendant. The court noted that adverse inference could be drawn if a party does not appear as a witness. (Paras 7, 24, 25)

(B) Adverse Inference - It is established that a party who does not testify can have adverse inferences drawn against them, reinforcing the importance of cross-examination in revealing the truth. (Paras 18, 24)

(C) Examination of Opposite Party - The court highlighted that summoning an opposite party as a witness is unusual but can be necessary in certain circumstances, thus allowing the petitioner’s request to cross-examine the defendant. (Paras 21, 25)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a company, sought to cross-examine the defendant, who allegedly misappropriated company funds and fraudulently executed sale deeds. The defendant claimed ill-health as a reason for not appearing in court.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the revision petitions, setting aside the trial court's dismissal of the applications, and directed the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to examine the defendant at his residence.

Issues: The main issues included the necessity of the defendant's cross-examination and the trial court's discretion in summoning a party as a witness.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the defendant's presence was essential for the petitioner to establish their case and that the trial court erred in not allowing the applications.

Result: Both Civil Revision Petitions are allowed, setting aside the common order dated 04.07.2022.

Table of Content
1. petitions filed against orders from lower court. (Para 1009)

ORDER :

G. RADHA RANI, J.

C.R.P.No.1009 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.106 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2010 by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhongir.

2. C.R.P.No.1018 of 2023 is filed by the petitioner - plaintiff aggrieved by the order dated 04.07.2022 passed in I.A.No.105 of 2022 in O.S.No.8 of 2010 by the learned Principal District Judge, Bhongir.

3. A common order was passed in both the I.A.s.

4. I.A.No.105 of 2022 is filed under Section 151 of CPC to re-open the case of the petitioner - plaintiff and I.A.No.106 of 2022 is filed under Order XVI Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to summon the defendant No.1 to subject himself for cross-examination by the petitioner - plaintiff.

5. The Assistant Manager of the petitioner - plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of both the petitions stating that he was working as Assistant Manager in Lands Department in plaintiff company, by name, Narne Estates. O.S.Nos.8 and 33 of 2010 were clubbed together and a joint trial was conducted in O.S.No.8 of 2010. The case was at the stage of arguments. The respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 had purchased the suit schedule property from the funds of the company, but was falsely claiming ownership and possession over the said property. Infact the respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 taking undue advantage of his post of paid director misappropriated the funds of the plaintiff company and misrepresented to the pattedar of lands and got executed various documents in his individual name, though the properties were purchased by the plaintiff company. The respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 deliberately did not choose to appear before the Court to adduce evidence and subject himself for cross-examination. He was hale and healthy, but wantonly not entered the witness box to avoid crucial aspects to be elicited from him in cross-examination. The respondent No.1 - defendant No.1 on 03.03.2022 made his appearance in a batch of criminal cases filed against him vide C.C.Nos.624 of 2006 to 632 of 2006 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhongir. Infact the petitioner - plaintiff intended to cross-examine the respondent - defendant No.1, as there were certain important aspects that would need to be brought to the notice of the Court through cross-examining him, but it could not be done, as he did not enter the witness box. When orally enquired, it was earlier informed that respondent - defendant No.1 was suffering with ill-health and was bed ridden and was not appearing before the Court. But the said aspect was found to be false, as he appeared before the Court on 03.03.2022 in the batch of criminal cases.

5.1. The petitioner contended that the cross-examination of respondent - defendant No.1 was essential to prove certain aspects pertaining to the case of the petitioner - plaintiff. No hardship would be caused to the respondents - defendants if the petition was allowed as prayed for, by summoning the respondent - defendant No.1 for cross-examination. On the other hand, if the said petition was not allowed, the petitioner - plaintiff would be put to grave injustice as real facts would remain in dark without the crucial witness i.e. defendant No.1 not being cross-examined. As such, prayed to summon the defendant No.1 - Mr. N.Gopal Naidu to subject himself to the Court for cross-examination by the petitioner - plaintiff.

6. The respondent - defendant No.1 filed his counter denying that he deliberately did not choose to appear before the Court to adduce evidence. He contended that his health was badly broke down and he was not in a position to move from the bed even for nature calls, and he was on diapers. In the said circumstances, he was not able to give his evidence and did not appear himself before the Court. The same was due to his ill-health and bad condition of his body. He admitted that on 03.03.2022, he made his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top