IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4058 and 4073 of 2018

DATE: 17.12.2025

Between: Nagamani

…Petitioner/Defendant No.11

AND

Vadla Anjaiah and 22 others

…Respondents

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioner

under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the orders passed in I.A.Nos.395 and 396 of 2018 in O.S.No.747 of 2006 on the file of the XIII Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar.

2. Heard Sri K.Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel virtually appearing on behalf of Sri A.Keshava Reddy, learned counsel for

the revision petitioner and none appeared for the respondents.

3. The petitioner herein who is defendant No.11 in the suit filed an application i.e., I.A.No.395 of 2018 under Section 151 of

CPC praying the learned trial Court to reopen the defendants side evidence for cross-examination of DW2 and DW3 by his counsel and other application i.e., I.A.No.396 of 2018 is filed by the petitioner herein under Order XVIII Rule 17 r/w Section 151 of CPC with a prayer to recall DW2 and DW3 for cross-examination. The learned trial Court has dismissed the I.A.Nos.395 and 396 of 2018 in O.S.No.747 of 2006 on merits not entitled to reopen the defendants side evidence for cross-examination of DW2 and DW3 and also not entitled to recall DW2 and DW3 for cross-examination. Aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.Nos.396 and 395 of 2018, the present petitions are filed contending that the learned trial Court without considering the facts mentioned in the affidavit and without following legal principles and also considering the age and health condition of the petitioner, the learned trail Court has dismissed the petitions on the ground that no sufficient cause or reason on the part of the petitioner for recalling DW2 and DW3 for cross-examination on behalf of the petitioners on those particular days. However, it is submitted that the recall of DW2 and DW3 sought by the petitioner to elicit the real facts from the mouth of the witnesses which would help to dispose the matters on merits. The learned trial Court ought to have considered the health condition of the petitioner, as such he appointed a GPA to proceed with the matters. Therefore, petitioner/defendant No.11 did not contact her counsel and unable to attend on the specific dates fixed for cross-examination of DW2 and DW3.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein who is defendant No.11 in the suit which is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. During the pendency of the suit, as the matters were coming up for arguments, defendant No.11 contended that as her counsel could not cross-examine DW2 and DW3, the learned trial Court has closed the cross-examination of DW2 on 29.12.2014 and DW3 on 19.06.2017 respectively. The reason for non cross-examining DW2 and DW3 prior to the said days was that her Senior Counsel was held up in the other Court. In the meanwhile, the learned trial Court closed the cross-examination of DW2 and DW3 and the said non examination was neither intentional nor want on and that it was just and necessary to recall DW2 and DW3 by reopening the evidence of the defendants.

5a. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 9 has filed the counter affidavit before the learned trial Court denied the averments made in the petition and contended that the petition was filed on all false, fictitious, concocted, fabricated, and on frivolous grounds and without cogent reasons in filing the present petitions. At this belated stage, it is only to cover the lacunas of their evidence and submitted that the petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed.

5b. It is further contended by the respondents that it was brought to the notice of the petitioner long back, when an application filed for recall of DW5 even after their evidence was completed, the matter was posted for arguments, but the petitioner kno