COMMON ORDER

The lis involved in these civil revision petitions and the parties are one and the same. Therefore, the same were heard together and decided by way of this common order:-

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Afzal Pasha, learned counsel representing Sri Mohd. Imtiaz Uddin Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the revisions and Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior counsel, representing Sri N.Janardhan Reddy, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/plaintiff in CRP No.3745 of 2024.

3. 1^st respondent/plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the petitioner/Respondent Nos.2 to 32 herein. The petitioner herein/defendant No.4 was set ex parte on 29.07.2013. She has filed I.A.No.1408 of 2023 under Order IX Rule 7 read with 151 of CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 29.07.2013. Vide order dated 02.01.2024, learned trial Court referring to the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Sangram Singh v.

Election Tribunal, [1995 AIR 425], in paragraph No.11, made certain observations and allowed the application setting aside the ex parte order dated

29.07.2013.

4. The petitioner had filed a written statement along with said I.A.No.1408 of 2023 itself. In the said written statement, she had specifically contended that she had purchased plot No.72 admeasuring 252.7 sq.yards in Sy.No.32 situated at Bommakal Village ( for short, ‘subject property’), on the strength of registered sale deed bearing document No.1973 of 1998, dated 31.03.1998. Since then, she has been in physical possession and enjoyment of the subject property. She has also specifically contended that the said suit is hit by Order IX Rule 7 read with Section 151 of CPC and is barred by limitation. Thus, she had set up her own defence. Therefore, she had a right to cross-examine both the P.Ws. 1 and 2. Without considering the said aspects, vide order dated 02.01.2024, learned trial Court despite allowing the application filed by the petitioner herein permitting her to come on record and produce her evidence, erroneously denied her the opportunity to cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2. Therefore, on consideration of the said aspects, vide order dated 19.04.2024 in C.R.P.No.1120 of 2024, this Court set aside the impugned order dated 02.01.2024 to the extent of denying an opportunity to the petitioner herein/defendant No.4 to cross-examine P.Ws. 1 and 2. Liberty was granted to the petitioner herein to file an appropriate application to recall P.Ws. 1 and 2 for cross-examining them and on filing such application, learned trial Court shall consider the same in view of aforesaid findings.

5. In view of the aforesaid findings, by virtue of the said liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner herein had filed two Interlocutory Applications i.e., I.As. 857 and 858 of 2024 in O.S.No.28 of 2012 for reopening and recalling P.Ws.1 and 2. As observed by this Court in the aforesaid order, filing of both applications is only formal. Instead of allowing the said applications and permitting the petitioner herein to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 by recalling them, vide common order dated 26.07.2024, the learned trial Court, referring to certain judgments, dismissed the said applications. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the order dated 19.04.2024 in CRP No.1120 of

2024 of this Court.

6. As discussed supra, in the order dated 19.04.2024 in CRP No.1120 of 2024, this Court gave a categorical finding that by filing the written statement, the petitioner herein set up her own defence and therefore, she is entitled to cross-examine PWs.1 and 2. Further, this Court held that the trial Court having permitted the petitioner herein to come on record, produce evidence, denied opportunity of cross- examination erroneously. Thus, filing of applications to reopen and recall P.Ws.1 and 2 is only formal. Without considering the said aspects, learned trial Court dismissed both the I.A.Nos.857 and 858 vide impugned order dated 26.07.2024. Thus, the trial Court co