THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4195 of 2018 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2861 of 2018 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4206 of 2018 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2800 of 2018

COMMON ORDER:

I have heard Mr.B.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr.Mirza Safiulla Baig, learned counsel on record for the respondent.

2. As the revision petitions are interconnected and pertain to impugned orders arising from interlocutory applications filed in the same suit—O.S. No. 21 of 2009 on the file of the XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District—they have been heard together and are being disposed of through this common order.

3. C.R.P. No. 4195 of 2018 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 13.04.2018 in I.A. No. 440 of 2018, passed under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, wherein the petitioners prayed for framing of additional issues.

4. C.R.P. No. 2861 of 2018, also filed under Article 227, challenges the order dated 13.04.2018 in I.A. No. 374 of 2018, passed under Section 151 CPC. The petition sought reopening of the case to file additional documents, framing of further issues, and recall of PWs. 1 and 2.

5. C.R.P. No. 4206 of 2018 is preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 13.04.2018 in I.A. No. 375 of 2018, passed under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC, seeking recall of PWs. 1 and 2 for further cross-

examination.

6. C.R.P. No. 2800 of 2018 challenges the order in I.A. No. 439 of 2018, dated 13.04.2018, passed under Order XI Rule 14 CPC, wherein the petitioners sought production of the original of cheque Ex.B-1 by the plaintiff.

7. The original suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking specific performance of an oral agreement of sale dated 06.01.2006, concerning the suit schedule property. At the stage of final arguments, the defendants filed the above-mentioned interlocutory applications seeking reopening of the matter, framing of additional issues, recalling of PWs. 1 and 2 for further cross-examination, and a direction for production of the original cheque (Ex.B-1). The trial Court, upon consideration of the merits, dismissed all applications via separate orders dated 13.04.2018.

Aggrieved, the defendants filed the present revision petitions.

8. Meanwhile, the defendants had also filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (f) CPC, seeking rejection of the plaint on the grounds of lack of cause of action and limitation. Upon dismissal, the defendants filed a revision petition, which was allowed by this Court, resulting in rejection of the plaint.

Consequently, the present revisions were dismissed as infructuous on 23.07.2021.

However, the said order was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4570 of 2023. The Apex Court, by its order dated 11.09.2024, set aside the High Court’s order and directed the trial Court to adjudicate the suit on merits within three months from the date of submission of a certified copy of the judgment. Additionally, the Supreme Court directed the High Court to hear the revision petitions on merits, granting liberty to the parties to file necessary applications. Accordingly, upon such application, the earlier dismissal order was set aside, and the revisions were restored for hearing.

9. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contends that the trial Court failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction in framing issues based on the rival pleadings. It is submitted that although the defendants admitted the oral agreement, they disputed the rate of consideration. The case of the defendants is that the agreed rate was Rs. 8,00,000/- per acre, and that the plaintiff initially paid Rs. 12,00,000/-, followed by issuance of Ex.B-1 (cheque) for Rs. 3,80,000/- towards the balance consideration. Later, citing financial inability, the plaintiff retrieved the cheque, an