IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

24th day of November, 2025

Between:

Musunuru Kishore Babu

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

and

1.Musunuru Shayaji Rao (late) died

2.Musunuru Lakshmikanthamma and 4 others.

...Respondent/Respondent

COMMON ORDER

Since these Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the

same O.S, between the same parties, they are being heard together

and disposed of by way of this common order.

2. Heard Sri Aravind Maturi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Karthik, learned counsel representing Sri D.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for respondents. Perused the

material on record.

3. The C.R.P.Nos.7166 and 7181 of 2018 are filed assailing the orders dated 26.10.2018 in I.A.Nos.1575 & 1576 of 2018 in O.S.No.9 of 2013 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum- VI Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short, the ‘trial Court’).

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.9 of 2013 on the file of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Khammam, seeking relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW1 and got examined PWs.2 and 3 and on behalf of the defendants, DWs.1 and 2 were examined. When the matter was posted for arguments, pending suit, the petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.Nos.1575 & 1576 of 2018 in O.S.No.9 of 2013 before the trial, seeking to reopen the case for the purpose of recalling DW2 for further cross-examination.

5. The main contention of the petitioner is that though DW2 was examined-in-chief and cross examined on 06.03.2018, as the plaintiff was unwell and was suffering from fever, he could not approach his counsel and could not instruct on certain aspects at the time of cross-examination of DW2. Hence, sought for further cross-examination of DW2. The main contention of the petitioner is that he is the legal heir and he has certain questions and he intends to put it to DW2.

6. Learned counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the petition contending that many opportunities were given to the petitioner/plaintiff to cross-examine to place their evidence but the petitioner with an intention to drag the matter, has filed the Interlocutory Applications at the fag end though knowing fully well that DW2 who is the mother of the petitioner is unwell and aged and that repeatedly asking her to appear before the trial Court for further cross-examination cannot be allowed and further argued that the petitioner has not placed any material to show that on which aspect he is intended to put questions to DW2. Whereas, the counsel for the petitioner further contended that the questions which he intended to put were not questioned earlier and that he got certain instructions subsequent to the cross-examination.

7. Further, the learned Judge, observed that DW1 and DW2 were examined and when the matter was posted for arguments, the petitioner filed I.As to reopen the matter for the purpose of recalling DW2 for further cross-examination to drag the matters.

8. The petitioner has filed I.As to reopen the matter for the purpose of recalling DW2 for further cross-examination as if he did not give any instructions to his counsel. But as seen from the record it is evident that DW2 is none other than the mother of the petitioner and she was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the petitioner in all the aspects with regard to family members details and the family properties.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents while opposing the petitions, has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bagai Construction vs Gupta Building Material Store, 1(2013) 14 SCC, held as follows:

In Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) through LRs. vs. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate, (2009) 4 SCC 410, this Court had an occasion to consider similar claim, particularly, application f