IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT YDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.3144 of 2025 Date: 12.12.2025 Between:

Mr.B.Narayana …Petitioner AND Mr.B.Sanjay Kumar and others. …Respondents

ORDER

Heard Chavidi Ramanand, learned counsel for the petitioner; 2. The instant Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the order dated 16.07.2025 in I.A.No.586 of 2025 in O.S.No.406 of 2003.

3. Vide impugned order, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner/defendant No.6 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking recalling of PW.1 and DW.1 for cross examination and reopening the evidence.

4. Perusal of the impugned order would go to show that learned Trial Court itself has taken due consideration of the same and have reached to the conclusion that the DW.1s chief evidence is over and for cross examination, an Advocate Commissioner has already been appointed and therefore, there is no need for recalling the evidence of DW.1. The defendant No.6 – petitioner would have all the rights to cross-examine the witness before the Commissioner.

5. So far as PW.1 is concerned, the trial Court was of the view that since the additional issues have been framed following the counter claim filed by respondent No.1, the matter would be put for refutal evidence on behalf of plaintiff and when the plaintiff is entering appearance for refutal evidence, the present petitioner/Defendant No.6 shall be permitted to cross-examine him.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner apprehends that if for any reason, the plaintiff does not enter appearance for refutal evidence, in that case, the petitioner may have a grievance. That stage does not arise when additional issues are framed. This Court presumes that plaintiff would be entering appearance for refutal evidence and under the said circumstances, the petitioner would be given a chance to cross-examine plaintiff. So far as the defendants defence is concerned, if for any reason, the plaintiff does not enters appearance or does not lead refutal evidence, the petitioner would be at liberty to take appropriate recourse in accordance to law.

7. The impugned order, at this juncture, does not warrants any interference. Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition fails and stands dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

__________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J

12.12.2025 mrm