THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.1629 of 2025 and Civil Revision Petition No.1657 of 2025

COMMON ORDER :

Since the issue arising out of the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same and the parties thereto are also same, they are being heard and decided by this Common Order.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.1629 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner / defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to allow the Revision by setting aside the order dated 20.01.2025 in I.A.No.1390 of 2024 in O.S.No.630 of 2015 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar; and consequently to direct the Trial Court to reopen the respondent / plaintiff’s evidence and to re-call PW.2, Sri Siddi Reddy Srinivas Reddy, for the limited purpose of confronting him with the contradictory suggestions made in the deposition of PW.1 in C.C.No.304 of 2016.

3. Likewise, Civil Revision Petition No.1657 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner / defendant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to allow the Revision by setting aside the order dated 20.01.2025 in I.A.No.1390 of 2024 in O.S.No.630 of 2015 passed by the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar; and consequently to direct the Trial Court to reopen the respondent / plaintiff’s evidence and to re-call PW.2, Sri Siddi Reddy Srinivas Reddy, for the limited purpose of confronting him with the contradictory suggestions made in the deposition of PW.1 in C.C.No.304 of 2016.

4. Heard Mr.Sandeep Kumar Bodla, learned counsel for the petitioner / defendant in both the Revisions.

5. In Civil Revision Petition No.1629 of 2025, the petitioner / defendant has assailed the order dated 20.01.2025 in I.A.No.1390 of 2024 in O.S.No.630 of 2015, a petition filed by the petitioner / defendant under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘the impugned order’), with a prayer to reopen the evidence of PW.2 for the purpose of further cross-examination.

6. In Civil Revision Petition, the petitioner / defendant had assailed the order dated 20.01.2025 in I.A.No.1391 of 2024 in O.S.No.630 of 2015 (for short, ‘the impugned order’), a petition filed by the petitioner / defendant under Order 18 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 with a prayer to recall PW.2 for the purpose of cross-examination. 7. Initially, the suit O.S.No.630 of 2015 has been filed by the respondent / plaintiff under Order VII Rule 26 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 04.03.2015 in respect of the suit schedule property against the petitioner / defendant herein.

8. After service of notice, the petitioner / defendant entered appearance and denied the claim of the respondent / plaintiff categorically denying the execution of the alleged agreement of sale. It is alleged that there was some negotiation which took place between PW.2 (i.e., the respondent / plaintiff’s father) and the petitioner / defendant, and since the negotiation did not materialize the advance money paid by the said PW.2 to the petitioner / defendant in respect to the said sale transaction got forfeited, and on account of non-refund of the amount by the petitioner / defendant, the respondent / plaintiff got registered a criminal case against the petitioner / defendant vide Crime No.99 of 2015 in C.C.No.304 of 2016 on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Hyderabad. However, in the said criminal case, PW.2 was acquitted vide judgment dated 19.02.2020.

9. Meanwhile, in the instant suit, i.e., O.S.No.630 of 2015, the respondent / plaintiff got examined herself as PW.1 and her brother as PW.2, and after cross- examination the respondent / plaintiff’s evidence was closed on 02.07.2024 and the matter was fixed for adducing evidence on the petitioner / defendant’s side.

10. In the interregnum, the respondent / plai