THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.3325 and 3326 OF 2023

COMMON ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article

227 of Constitution of India assailing the orders in I.A.Nos.423 and 424 of 2023 in O.S.No.44 of 2016, dated 04.10.2023 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar, wherein the applications filed by the petitioner-defendant No.1 to reopen the evidence of respondent No.1-plaintiff and to recall PW-1 are dismissed.

2. Petitioner herein is the petitioner-defendant No.1, respondent No.1 herein is respondent No.1-plaintiff and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are the respondent Nos.2 to 4-defendant Nos.2 to 4 in I.A.Nos.423 and 424 of 2023 in O.S.No.44 of 2016.

3. The grounds in both the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and for the sake of convenience, grounds of C.R.P.No.3325 of 2023 are taken up.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court erred in dismissing the applications filed by the petitioner, seeking to reopen the evidence of respondent No.1- plaintiff and to recall PW-1 for fair adjudication of the case. The evidence of the parties is not closed and the suit is coming up for evidence of defendant Nos.2 to 4 (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein). Learned trial Court erred in dismissing the applications without valid reason and the previous counsel could not properly examine PW-1. Learned trial Court cannot throw out the applications at threshold stage without proper appreciation of evidence of either side, hence the orders passed by the learned trial Court in both the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be set aside.

5. Notice got issued to the respondent No.1-plaintiff is served but none appeared.

6. Power of the High Court under Article 227 is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the limits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injustice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have, or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (See: K.Valarmathi and Others Vs. Kumaresan – 2025 SCC OnLine SC 985).

7. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed a suit for Perpetual Injunction against the petitioner-defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 to 4(respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein), restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e., land to an extent of 1210 Sq.Yards in Sy.No.37/B, situated at Bommakal Grampanchayat of Rajvi Chaman of Karimnagar Mandal and District. The suit schedule property consists of two items i.e., item No.I and item No.II.

8. Petitioner-defendant No.1 has filed common affidavit in I.A.Nos. 423 and 424 of 2023 in O.S.No.44 of 2016 stating that he has changed his earlier counsel by name Sri Ajay Chakravarthy, due to non-cooperation with him and also with the learned trial Court. Earlier counsel Sri. Ajay Chakravarthy has not properly cross examined PW-1 i.e., Puttapaka Srinivas as per his instructions, he lost material questions to be put to PW-1, it is just and necessary to reopen the evidence of respondent No.1-plaintiff and recall PW-1 for further cross examination.

9. Respondent No.1-plaintiff has filed common counter and contended that there is no explanation given by the petitioner- defendant No.1 in the affidavit to reopen the case and to recall PW-1.

10. Learned trial Court after considering the contentions raised by both the parties has dismissed both the applications vide common order dated 04.10.2023, which is impugned in the present Civil Revision Petitions.

11. On careful reading of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, which goes to show that his earlier counsel has not examined PW-1 as per his instructions. Affidavit is silent on what point the petitioner intends to further cro