COMMON ORDER:

1. C.R.P. No. 2999 of 2022 and C.R.P. No. 3000 of 2022 are filed challenging separate orders dated 21.11.2022 in I.A. No. 339 of 2022 in O.S. No. 651 of 2006 and I.A. No. 341 of 2022 in O.S. No. 652 of 2006 (hereinafter ‘the impugned orders’) passed by the learned II Addl. District Judge at Medchal (hereinafter ‘the trial court’) whereby the Petitioner’s application seeking to eschew her earlier affidavit-in-lieu of chief examination (hereinafter ‘chief examination affidavit’) and permission to file a fresh chief examination affidavit was rejected. As these revisions raise a common issue and the parties are also common, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioner herein is the Plaintiff No.1 in the above suit.

3. Perusal of the record indicates that the Petitioner in the present civil revisions had instituted two suits bearing O.S. No. 651 of 2006 and O.S. No. 652 of 2006 seeking specific performance and permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, originally against the Respondent No. 2 herein.

4. Initially Respondent No.2 herein was set-exparte on 12.03.2007 for non-filing of written statement. The Petitioner herein had then filed her evidence as PW-1 on 14.08.2007 and was completed on 29.08.2007. After the Petitioner’s evidence was completed, the Respondent No.2/Defendant No.1 filed application to set-aside exparte order along with his written statement. The said application was allowed on 23.07.2008.

5. Thus, after the Respondent No.2/Defendant No.1 was allowed to come back on record, the trial court on 16.09.2008 framed six (6) issues to be decided during the trial based on the pleadings of the plaintiff and the original defendant. Subsequently, during the pendency of the said suits, the suit schedule property was sold to third parties and Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 herein who were the alleged purchasers were impleaded as defendant nos. 2 & 3 in the suits on 26.09.2009. Similarly, as the Petitioner had executed an assignment deed in favour of Respondent No.1 herein, he was impleaded as plaintiff No.2 on 04.11.2011. In sequel, the plaint was amended and the Respondent No.2/Defendant No.1 filed his additional written statement on 08.10.2012.

6. Thereafter, the trial court posted the matter for trial on 05.12.2012. On the said date the chief examination affidavit filed by Petitioner earlier was recorded as filed and the matter was posted for marking of documents on 18.12.2012. Subsequently, on 22.07.2013 the Respondent No. 1/Plaintiff No.2 also examined himself and gave his evidence in part.

7. On 31.12.2019, the trial court noticing that the Petitioner herein as PW-1 failed to appear for cross examination by Respondent No. 2 to 4 herein, eschewed her evidence i.e., her chief examination affidavit recorded on 05.12.2012 along with the documents marked. The trial court after 15 months therefrom on

22.03.2021 closed the plaintiff evidence.

8. On the trial court closing the plaintiff’s evidence, the Petitioner herein filed interlocutory applications in both the suits seeking to reopen the same. The trial court vide order dated 16.11.2021 allowed the applications and the plaintiff’s evidence was reopened.

9. As Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 herein as defendant Nos. 2 & 3, had filed their written statements pursuant to the application under Order 8 Rule 10 being allowed by the trial court vide order dated 31.12.2021 in I.A. No.473 of 2021, the trial court framed two (2) additional issues on 21.02.2022 and permitted the Petitioner/ plaintiff to adduce further evidence in relation to the additional issues.

10. As the matter stood thus, on 29.03.2022, the Petitioner herein filed a memo seeking to eschew her earlier chief examination affidavit and permission to file a fresh chief examination affidavit. The trial court vide a docket order dated 29.03.2022 granted relief as prayed. However, the said docket order was challenged before this Court in CRP No. 1388 of 2022 and CRP No. 1401 of 2022. This Court vide