##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

DATE: 23.12.2025

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.345 AND 353 OF 2021

Between:

Shaik Mohammed S/o Lal Mohammed …Petitioner

And

Ameeruddin and others …Respondents

COMMON ORDER

These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article

227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner aggrieved by

the orders, dated 18.01.2021, in I.A.Nos.6 and 5 of 2021 in

O.S.No.107 2012 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge,

Zaheerabad, whereunder and whereby I.A.Nos.6 and 5 of

2021 are filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the C.P.C) to recall and to reopen

the case of D.W.1 for the purpose of adducing evidence on

behalf of the petitioner, was dismissed on the ground that

there are no reasonable and justifiable grounds for reopening

the evidence of D.W.1.

Page 2 of 7

NNR,J

crp_345&353_2019

2. Heard Sri A.Najeeb Khan, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Venkatesh Deshpande, learned counsel for

the respondents.

3. The petitioner herein is defendant No.1 in the suit.

The facts of the case in brief are that the respondents filed a

suit for survey and demarcation of boundaries and perpetual

injunction against the petitioner herein. It is the case of the

petitioner that since he is aged about 84 years, it is very

difficult for him to walk and stand properly for hours together

before the Court, he filed I.A.Nos.600 and 601 of 2020 to

reopen and evidence and to appoint an Advocate

Commissioner to record his evidence. The said applications

were allowed by the trial Court. The Commissioner received

warrant from the Court on 10.12.2020, but, he issued notices

to the parties 22 days after receipt of said warrant i.e., on

02.01.2021. It is stated that since the petitioner could not

complete his evidence, his evidence was eschewed by the trial

Court and posted the matter for arguments.

4. The respondents -plaintiffs filed counter stating

that when the matter was posted for petitioner’s evidence, the

Page 3 of 7

NNR,J

crp_345&353_2019

petitioner failed to proceed with the evidence even after

several adjournments, his evidence was closed on 31.01.2020

as the suit is of the year 2012. Then the petitioner filed

I.A.Nos.600 and 601 of 2020 to reopen the evidence and to

appoint Advocate Commissioner to record his evidence. Due

to covid pandemic-2019, these applications were allowed and

Commissioner was appointed and the case was coming up for

recording of evidence of D.W.1 and it was posted on

17.12.2020, 29.12.2020 and 04.01.2021 for commissioner

report. It is stated that on 02.01.2021, the Advocate

Commissioner issued notice to both parties stating that he is

going to record the evidence of D.W.1 on 03.01.2021, but, the

petitioner counsel endorsed that D.W.1 is hospitalized and

requested to adjourn execution of warrant, as such on

04.01.2021, the Court closed the petitioner evidence and

eschewed the chief affidavit of D.W.1 as no medical certificate

regarding the health condition. The contention of the

petitioner herein is that the learned trial Court acted beyond

the Circular of this Court vide ROC No.394 of 2020. After

hearing both sides, the learned trial Court dismissed both the

Page 4 of 7

NNR,J

crp_345&353_2019

petitioners. Challenging the same the present revision cases

were filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that

though the petitioner is aged about 84 years suffering from

multiple health issues, the learned trial Court is insisting the

petitioner to file his medical record, which is not just and

proper. He further submits that the petitioner is ready to

cooperate for recording his evidence and hence, he prays to

set aside the impugned orders.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the

respondents submits that though reasonable opportunity was

given to petitioner he could not choose to complete recording

of evidence of D.W.1; that earlier also he filed similar

application to reopen his evidenc