IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

C.R.P. No.3029 of 2019

10^th December 2025

Between:

Sri B.Narasimha Reddy

…Petitioner/defendant No.2

AND

Sri Devi Reddy Nagireddy and another. …Respondents/plaintiff-defendant No.1

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner under Article

227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the docket order dated 11.11.2019 in O.S.No.1564 of 2013 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, (for short, ‘the trial

court’)

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are referred to as in the trial Court.

3. Vide the impugned order, dated 11.11.2019, the learned trial Court passed the following order:

“Learned commissioner filed the Memo stating that the learned defendant No.2 counsel refused to cross examine the DW1 by stating that at the first instance the plaintiff has to cross examine. But as per the procedure the defendant No.2 has to cross examine Dw1 and therefore, the learned commissioner is directed first proceed with cross examination by Defendant No.2 counsel and thereafter filed the report”.

4. Being aggrieved by the said impugned order, the present civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/defendant No.2.

Brief facts of the case are:

a) The plaintiff has filed O.S.No.1564 of 2013 praying the court to pass a decree for specific performance directing the defendants 1 and 2 to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff at his costs towards the Stamp duty and Registration charges in respect of the suit schedule property; that the plaintiff be put in vacant physical possession of the suit schedule properly upon the execution and registration of the sale deed; in case the defendant fails to comply the decree passed by this Court, the Court may itself execute and register a Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiff at his costs towards the stamp duty and registration charges in respect of the suit schedule property and put him in vacant physical possession of the same along with the cost.

5. Pending the suit, when the matter came up for cross-examination of DW1. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed to record the cross- examination of DW1, who is the witness for Defendant No.1. During the course of cross-examination, on 08.11.2019, the learned counsel for Defendant No.2 filed a memo stating that the plaintiff’s counsel was conducting the cross-examination of DW1, even though Defendant No.2 desired to do so later. The memo further stated that Defendant No.2 could proceed with the cross-examination of DW2 on the ground that the plaintiff and Defendant No.2 are in collusion with Defendant No.1 and have filed the suit in such collusion. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also filed a memo before the trial court, which reads as follows:

“It is submitted that today mater is coming for the cross examination of Dw1 before the Advocate Commissioner that during the pendency of the above suit proceedings Dw1 has executed sale deed in favour of D2 vide document bearing No.6782/2015, dt:30.03.2015 and my main contention is that D2 is sailing with D1, under Rule of Prudence the counsel for D2 has to cross first the Dw1, otherwise it will cause irreparable loss & damage to my case. Therefore, I will be conducted the cross examination of Dw1 after completing cross examination by counsel for D2”.

6. The learned trial court upheld the contention of the plaintiff vide impugned order, dated 11.11.2019 and directed the defendant No.2 to cross examine the DW1 first and thereafter permitted the plaintiff to proceed.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed on the ground that the learned trial court ought to have seen that the cross-examination of any witness on behalf of the defendants has to be done after the plaintiff’s cross-examination, in accord