The Court upheld the principles of judicial discretion under Order XVI Rule 14 CPC, emphasizing the importance of consistent claims and fair trial without unreasonable delays.

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in this batch of Revisions is one and the same, they are taken up for analogous hearing and are being decided by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr. Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, learned Senior counsel, representing Mr. V.S.R.M.V. Prasad Sanaka, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.1055 are discussed hereunder.

4. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the common order dated 22.01.2025, in E.A.No.06 of 2025 and E.A.No.20 of 2025 in E.A.No.95 of 2024 in E.P.No.283 of 2023, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

5. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the petitions filed by the petitioners under Order XVI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘ CPC ’) seeking for reopening the evidence of the claim petitioners and for summoning the JDR No.3 as a Court witness.

6. The facts of the case are that the Original Suit O.S.No.505 of 2023 (Old O.S.No.674 of 2021) was filed by the respondent No.1 herein seeking eviction of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein from the suit schedule property, along with recovery of arrears of rent towards damages. The Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 07.11.2023, directed Respondents Nos.2 and 3 to vacate the property and to pay the arrears of rent. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an E.A.No.06 of 2025 in E.A.No.95 of 2025 in E.P.No.283 of 2023 to reopen the evidence of the respondent No.1 and to summon JDR No.3 (P. Amarnath Reddy) as Court witness. However, the Trial Court passed an impugned order dated

22.01.2025, dismissing the said application. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein has filed present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the same.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court in O.S.No.505 of 2023 acknowledged that the premises had been sublet to a third party and failed to identify the specific sublessee or frame a conclusive issue on these material facts. The Trial Court erroneously and without jurisdiction recorded that the sub-tenancy issue had been conclusively adjudicated in the main suit, thereby misconstruing the judicial findings and perpetrating a grave miscarriage of justice by attributing the sub-tenancy to the claim petitioner / respondent No.1 without sufficient evidence.

8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Trial Court had fundamentally erred in determining that an oral lease existed exclusively between the claim petitioner and the Decree Holder Respondent (DHR) and concluding that JDR No.3 had no nexus with the agreement. The Trial Court also overlooked the JDR’s statement in the eviction suit suggesting that the property had been sublet making it imperative to summon the JDR to clarify the ambiguity surrounding the subletting arrangement and by denying this opportunity, the Trial Court improperly shifted the burden of proof entirely onto the petitioner and compromised the principles of fair adjudication.

9. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court's rejection of the application under Order XVI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC was contrary to law and denied the petitioner an opportunity to establish his tenancy claim. Further, the Trial Court erroneously held that a separate