THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.630 & 652 of 2024

COMMON ORDER:

Parties in all these revisions are one and the same and they raise common issue. Therefore, with their consent, they are being disposed of by a common order.

2. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the common order of the learned Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, dated 09.11.2023 dismissing I.A.Nos.233 and

234 of 2023 in O.S.No.32 of 2009.

3. Petitioner herein filed the aforesaid O.S.No.32 of 2009 for Specific Performance. These two applications were filed by the petitioner herein praying the Court to reopen and recall the evidence of D.W.1 for further cross-examination. The trial Court dismissed the applications on 09.11.2023. Aggrieved by the order of the trial Court, petitioner herein filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner herein filed a suit for specific performance against the respondent herein in respect of the house bearing No.4-

5-112 to 4-5-115 under the agreement of sale deed dated 15.09.1989. During the cross-examination of D.W.1, learned counsel for petitioner could not confront Exs.A8 and A9 to D.W.1 by oversight and the said documents were filed five years back and the said documents are very crucial and important to prove the case of the petitioner/plaintiff. Exs.A8 and A9 are the Certified Copies of Memorandum of partition deed dated 30.11.1985 and Notary Affidavit and they were filed in the year 2017 itself, as the said documents were not confronted by the either said, the petitioner herein requested for reopen and recall of evidence of D.W.1.

5. The trial Court observed that D.W.1 was cross- examined at length on 13.07.2023 and the evidence was closed. Learned counsel for petitioner/plaintiff has not posed even a single question with regard to Ex.A8 or its execution and when there is no trace of any question or reference to Ex.A8 in the cross-examination of D.W.1, the question of confronting the said documents to D.W.1 does not arise. Regarding Ex.A9, except a vague suggestion that D.W.1 has executed a Notary Affidavit, D.W.1 denied the same, as such the question of confronting the same does not serve any purpose and accordingly dismissed the application.

6. A perusal of record shows that the certified copy of the notary affidavit was filed along with the plaint but the certified copy of the memorandum of partition deed dated 30.11.1985 was not filed. Petitioner herein contended that by inadvertently they could not confront the same and the documents are very important and crucial to prove his case. It is for the petitioner/plaintiff to prove their case and they approached the Court. Petitioner stated that the said documents were filed long back but they could not confront the same. The parties should be given reasonable opportunity to establish their case for arriving to the just decision of the case. But the learned counsel for petitioner before the trial Court stated that they could not confront the documents due to oversight. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to set aside the order of the trial Court.

7. In the result, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed by setting aside the common order of the trial Court dated 09.11.2023 passed in I.A.Nos.233 and 234 of 2023 in O.S.No.32 of 2009 on costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to District Legal Services Authority, Vikarabad within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

_____________________

P. SREE SUDHA, J Date: 13.08.2024 CHS