IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA C.R.P.No.1229 of 2025

05^TH JANUARY, 2026 Between:

Smt. D. Jayaprada.

… Petitioners AND Mr. Pasham Bhaskar.

…Respondents

ORDER

Heard Smt. B. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the 1^st respondent-plaintiff.

3. Aggrieved by the docket order dated 20.03.2025 passed in O.S.No.475 of 2021 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate at Malkajgiri, this civil revision petition is filed by the petitioners-defendants 1 and 2.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent- plaintiff has filed O.S.No.475 of 2021 for perpetual injunction. The said suit was coming up for recording of plaintiff’s evidence. After recording the evidence in chief and marking exhibits, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for recording the cross-examination of PW-1. At this juncture, there was failure on the part of the section to handover the exhibits to the Advocate Commissioner for recording the cross-examination effectively by confronting the exhibits marked on behalf of the 1st respondent-plaintiff. Therefore, cross-examination was deferred on account of non-availability of exhibits with the Advocate Commissioner and a Memo to that effect was filed by learned counsel for the defendant on 06.03.2025. On the said date, the matter was adjourned to 20.03.2025 for filing the Commissioner’s Report. On 20.03.2025, without assigning any reasons, at request of learned counsel for the 1^st respondent-plaintiff, the trial Court ordered for recording cross-examination of PW-1 in open Court despite the fact that the Commissioner’s Fee was already paid and there was no fault on the part of the revision petitioners-defendants herein for deferring the cross-examination.

5. As seen from the record, due to mere lapse of not handing over the documents marked on behalf of the 1^st respondent-plaintiff was the reason for deferring the cross- examination of PW-1. The fault would lie at the end of section or Advocate Commissioner, but not the revision petitioners-defendants. There was no issue about any factor that prevented recording cross-examination such as obstruction from the party or the counsel. The recording of evidence before an Advocate Commissioner is seen to be more conducive for saving Court’s time and for recording evidence at the convenience of parties and their counsels.

6. Since the revision petitioners still insist that the cross-examination be recorded before the Advocate Commissioner, in the absence of opposition, and in the absence of valid reasons for abandoning of recording the evidence before the Advocate Commissioner, the impugned docket order dated 20.03.2025 is liable to be set aside.

7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this petition, shall stand closed. _________________________ JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Date: 05.01.2026

AKS/rkk