HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1603, 1634 and 1660 of 2025

COMMON ORDER

Heard Sri Gummalla Bhaskar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.

2. These three Civil Revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the common order, dated 06.03.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.348, 349 and 350 of 2025 in O.S.Nos.8 of 2022 by the learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar.

3. Respondent herein had filed a suit vide O.S.No.8 of 2022 against the petitioner herein for specific performance of an Agreement of Sale, dated 31.01.2020. The said suit is posted for arguments. At that stage, respondent has filed three Interlocutory Applications i.e., I.A.Nos.348, 349 and 350 of 2025 in O.S.No.8 of 2022. I.A.No.348 of 2025 to re-open the evidence of plaintiff, I.A.No.349 of 2025 to receive the documents on record and I.A.No.350 of 2025 to issue summons to Sri M.Kanukuntla Shankar, Advocate to elicit the true facts. Respondent has filed the said applications, contending that the suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale, he got issued legal notice, dated 23.12.2021 to the petitioner/defendant before filing the suit and the same was served on 31.12.2021. Thereafter, she has issued a reply, dated 05.01.2022, through Sri M. Kanukuntla Shankar, Advocate. But, during the cross examination, petitioner herein/defendant (D.W1) denied the receipt of the legal notice and issuing of reply notice and she deposed that she got issued a reply notice on behalf of her father through the said advocate. Therefore, prayed to reopen the plaintiff’s evidence for receiving the aforesaid documents and issuance of summons to Sri Kanukuntla Shankar, Advocate is necessary to elicit the aforesaid facts.

4. Petitioner herein has filed counter opposing the said application contending that the respondent herein did not file any application for recall of P.W.1. The said suit is at argument stage. Respondent is trying to fill up the lacunas and the same is impermissible

5. Vide common order, dated 06.03.2025, learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar allowed all the aforesaid three applications on payment of costs of Rs.500/- to other side and on issuing summons to witness Sri Kanukuntla Shankar, Advocate to give evidence by 18.03.2025.

6. Challenging the said common order, petitioner/defendant filed the present three applications contending that though there is no recall application to recall P.W.1, learned trial Court also recalled P.W.1. Thus, the trial Court committed jurisdictional error. The trial Court did not consider the contentions of the petitioner. Respondent/ plaintiff is trying to fill up the lacunas in the evidence. She has filed the present applications at the belated stage.

7. As discussed supra, the suit is for specific performance of agreement of sale. The said suit is posted for arguments, at that stage, respondent/plaintiff had filed the aforesaid three applications to reopen, to receive the documents and to issue summons to the witness contending that during the course of hearing, petitioner herein/D.W.1 denied the receipt of legal notice and issuance of reply notice. Therefore, it is just and necessary to file the said documents and elicit the said facts.

8. It is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that due to inadvertence, he has filed the aforesaid notice and reply notice. Therefore, it is just and necessary to file legal notice, dated 23.12.2021 and acknowledgment copy, dated 31.12.2021. He has filed another suit against the father of the defendant. Therefore, due to inadvertence, he has filed the aforesaid legal notice issued to father of the respondent in the present suit instead of filing the same in other suit. On consideration of the said facts and on considering the submissions of counsel, learned trial Court held that it is only accidental slip. Once re-open petition is allowed, recalling of the witness is only formal. There is no ir