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
| 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
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.
A party to a suit cannot compel the opponent to testify on their behalf as a matter of right; the trial court has discretion to allow such summons based on the necessity and context of the case.
Summoning a defendant as the plaintiff's witness is discouraged and should occur only in exceptional circumstances; the plaintiff must bear the burden of proof.
Parties in a civil suit can be summoned as witnesses under the CPC, but compelling testimony without sufficient cause violates procedural norms.
A party to a suit can call another party as a witness under specific circumstances, but must provide a valid justification for doing so according to procedural rules.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 does not permit calling the other party to the suit only for the purpose of cross-examination and condemns t....
A party cannot summon a witness for cross-examination without prior examination-in-chief; persistent frivolous applications to delay proceedings are deemed an abuse of process.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.