Reopening evidence post-arguments is allowed under exceptional circumstances to ensure justice, despite prior completion of evidence.

ORDER : 

Renuka Yara, J.

Heard Sri Y. Koteswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the entire record.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the common dismissal order dated 07.08.2024 in I.A.Nos.769, 770 and 771 of 2024 in O.S.No.631 of 2019 on the file of the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (‘trial Court’) by the petitioner/plaintiff.

3. The petitioner/plaintiff filed suit for specific performance of agreement of sale for purchase of shares. The petitioner paid an amount of Rs.3,10,000/- as advance vide cheque No.000001, dated 04.11.2018 drawn on HDFC Bank Limited, Nirmal Branch. The respondent encashed the said cheque through her bank i.e., State Bank of India, Triveni Complex, Abids, Hyderabad. The petitioner was ready and willing to pay balance consideration of Rs.9,30,000/-. However, the respondent failed to receive the said amount and therefore, suit for specific performance was filed. The evidence of the petitioner concluded and evidence of D.W.1, who is father of respondent, is recorded. D.W.1 denied receiving of Rs.3,10,000/- by way of cheque No.000001, dated 04.11.2018 and therefore, in order to prove the payment of part consideration I.A.No.769 of 2024 to reopen the suit to receive documents, I.A.No.770 of 2024 to receive copy of the transaction acknowledged by the bank and I.A.No.771 of 2024 to summon the branch manager/authorized official of HDFC Bank, Nirmal, as witness to mark the documents submitted were filed. The said I.As. were dismissed by the trial Court vide impugned common order dated 07.08.2024. Aggrieved by the said common order, the present Civil Revision Petitions are preferred.

4. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that there is failure to see that I.As. have been filed to receive crucial documents and to examine the witness for proper adjudication of the case, whereas, the trial Court has erroneously extracted the cross-examination of the plaintiff and dismissed the I.As. under revision. There is failure on the part of the trial Court in assessing the strength of the petitions before relying upon the cross- examination of the P.W.1. P.W.2, who is husband of the petitioner, has deposed that advance payment was made to the respondent, but the same is denied by D.W.1. The trial Court did not consider the evidence of P.W.2 in the common order as to payment of Rs.3,10,000/-. It is denied that there is need to examine the Bank Manager, HDFC Bank, Nirmal, and produce the cheque through which amount has been paid. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned common order by allowing the C.R.Ps. and also consequently, allow the I.As. under revision.

5. During the arguments, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion that the petitioner’s case to reopen the matter to receive the bank transaction showing the digital image of cheque No.000001, dated 04.11.2018 and frequently asked question of Cheque Truncation System (CTS) was not filed during the recording of evidence of the petitioner and the same is sought to be received at the fag-end when the evidence is closed and matter is posted for arguments. Further, an erroneous observation is made that there are no pleadings with respect to cheque transaction in the plaint. In that context, reference is made to paragraph No.3 of the plaint wherein there is categorical pleading about entering into share purchase agreement dated 08.09.2018 by paying an