I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTI CE P.SAM KOSHY

CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON Nos.4037 & 4042 of 2025

DATE OF COMMON ORDER: 12.12.2025

Between :

H.B. Shiv Kumar Singh, S/o. H.Bansi Singh,

Age: 63 years, occu: Retd. Employee,

R/o. B-10, First Floor, Asha officers Colony,

Rama Krishna Puram, Tirumalgheri,

Secunderabad.

…Petitioner

AND

Polepeddi Vishwanath, S/o. Shiva Shankar,

aged about 67 years, Occupation: Retd. Employee,

R/o. Plot No.B-10, Anurag Asha Colony,

Rama Krishnapuram,

Secunderabad - 50056.

…Respondent

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue in the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one

and same, and the parties to the dispute also being the same, they

are heard together and decided by this Common Order.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant and learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff

3. Civil Revision Petition No.4037 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner / defendant assailing the order dated 22.09.2025, in I.A.No.698 of 2025 in O.S.No.594 of 2019, passed by the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad; and Civil Revision Petition No.4042 of 2025 is also filed by the same petitioner / defendant assailing the order dated 22.09.2025, in I.A.No.699 of 2025 in O.S.No.594 of 2019, passed by the XI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

4. Vide the impugned orders, the Trial Court the dismissed the two petitions, viz., I.A.No.698 of 2025, a petition filed by the petitioner / defendant under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) praying the Trial Court to reopen the evidence of the respondent / plaintiff for further cross-examining PW.1; and also I.A.No.699 of 2025, a petition filed by the petitioner / defendant under Section 151 of CPC praying the Trial Court to recall the evidence of respondent / plaintiff for further cross-

examining PW.1.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent / plaintiff filed a suit O.S.No.594 of 2019 before the Trial Court with a relief of eviction, recovery of possession and arrears of rents over the suit schedule property. The matter in due course of time reached the stage of trial. The evidence of PW.1’s examination of chief was submitted in the form of an affidavit in the year 2023 and the matter was fixed for cross-examination of respondent / plaintiff’s witness on 08.12.2023 and thereafter on 15.07.2024. Learned counsel for petitioner / defendant could not reach the Trial Court on the said day and the evidence of PW.1 was closed without cross- examination. Respondent / plaintiff thereafter reported no further evidence and the matter stood posted for defence evidence on 01.08.2024. Thereafter, the matter again stood posted on 05.08.2024, on which date, the petitioner / defendant preferred a recall and reopen petition and the said petitions stood allowed on payment of costs on 29.08.2024 and the matter stood posted on 15.09.2024 for further cross-examination of PW.1. On 15.09.2024, since the learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant did not avail the opportunity to cross-examine, the cross-examination of PW.1 was again treated as nil and the matter stood posted to

05.11.2024. Subsequently, the defence evidence also stood closed on 24.09.2024. Meanwhile, a Civil Revision Petition was preferred before the High Court, which too stood dismissed and the matter was fixed for final arguments and subsequently at a much belated stage the petitioner / defendant filed the instant I.As. for recalling and reopening the evidence of PW.1 for further cross-examination.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / defendant contended that the Trial Court has been showing an undue haste in concluding the proceedings and in that process an effective opportunity to put forth his defence was not provided, thereby resulting in denial of the principles of natural justice and is against the doctrine of substantial justice.

7. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner / defendant, th