THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.363 and 389 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

Since the issue involved in these two Revisions is arising out of the same Suit, and the parties also being the same, they are taken up together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. Heard Mr. K.Bhanu Prakash, learned Senior Counsel, representing Mr. Kothapalli Sai Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. K.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Civil Revision Petition No.363 of 2025 is filed assailing the order dated 20.01.2025, in I.A.No.861 of 2024 in O.S.No.124 of 2011, passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar; and Civil Revision Petition No.820 of 2025 is filed assailing the order dated 20.01.2025, in I.A.No.862 of 2024 in O.S.No.124 of 2011, passed by the learned X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.

Nagar.

4. Vide the impugned orders; the Trial Court dismissed the two petitions filed by the petitioner herein, one under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) seeking to recall PW.1 for the purpose of marking documents, and the other petition under Section 151 of CPC for reopening the evidence of PW.1 so as to enable her to mark the listed documents.

5. The facts of the case are that, the petitioner, an illiterate woman who claims to have been misled by the village elders, filed a suit for partition of the joint family property and for separate possession of her 1/4^th share in the suit schedule property. The suit was filed in the year 2011. The petitioner’s father, Late Chiguruinthala Balaiah @ Bal Reddy, was adopted by Mrs. Siddenki Rangamma and Mr. Siddenki Narsi Reddy. The latter was the grandfather of respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. Mrs. Siddenki Rangamma was married prior to the year 1954. However, following the demise of her husband, she was adopted by the petitioner’s father. Consequently, the share of Mrs. Siddenki Rangamma devolved upon the petitioner’s father. After his marriage, the petitioner’s father began residing in the same village as the petitioner, along with the parents of respondent Nos.1 to 8.

6. The agricultural activities on the property were carried out jointly by the petitioner’s father and her maternal uncles, namely Mr. Sathi Reddy and Mr. Ram Reddy. The Kasara Pahani records also indicate that the names of the petitioner’s father and her maternal uncles were reflected in the revenue records, although the Suit schedule property was exclusively owned by the petitioner’s father. Despite the fact that the parents of respondent Nos.1 to 8 submitted a declaration before the Land Reforms Tribunal claiming possession of the suit schedule property, the said declaration was not accepted by the Tribunal. Nevertheless, respondent Nos.1 to 8 managed to take possession of certain portions of the land.

7. According to the petitioner, although respondent Nos.1 and 2 placed strong reliance on a partition deed that was allegedly executed, and even assuming, without admitting that such a partition deed is genuine, it is submitted that subsequent to the execution of the said deed, Mr. Ram Reddy and Mr. Sathi Reddy, along with the petitioner’s father, sold portions of the property to third parties and also obtained release deeds, however, these release deeds were not produced or brought on record. Furthermore, when the petitioner’s sons filed an application to set aside the ex parte orders, the same was dismissed. She intended to confront DW.1 with the above-mentioned documents during cross-examination conducted on 06.09.2024 and again on 23.09.2024. However, this was opposed by DW.1, who stated that he would only respond to questions pertaining to the documents that had been formally marked as exhibits. As a result, he did not address the documents that remained unmarked. The petitioner contends that these unmarked documents are crucial to the adju