THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1792 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri S.Sridhar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

2. In spite of service of notices on the respondents, none appeared and there is no representation on behalf of the respondents since June, 2025 till date.

3. Perused the record.

4. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.775 of 2024 in O.S.No.74 of 2013 on the file of the learned III Senior Civil Judge, FAC XIX Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad, wherein a petition filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to re-open the case to lead defendants’ side evidence, has been dismissed.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents-plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.74 of 2013 for perpetual and mandatory injunction against the petitioners-defendants herein and other defendants. The said matter was posted for defendants’ side evidence on 22.03.2024. On the said date, due to the absence of the counsel on behalf of the defendants and in the presence of PW1, the following order was passed:

“Matter passed over till 2.00 pm. Defendants called absent. No representation. PW1 is present. Since the defendants failed to appear and cross examine PW1 despite conditional order, the cross examination of PW1 is treated nil. For further plaintiff evidence, call on 15.04.2024.”

Instead of closing the defendants’ side evidence, the learned trial Court erroneously treated the cross-examination of PW1 as ‘NIL’ and posted the matter on 15.04.2024 and that on 15.04.2024, when the counsel for respondents-plaintiffs brought to the notice of the Court, the following order was passed:-

“Heard learned counsel for plaintiff. It is noticed and submitted by learned counsel for plaintiff that instead of closing the defendant evidence, this court inadvertently treated cross examination of PW-1 as nil. The same stands corrected to the D.E is closed as ordered on 01.04.2024. For arguments. Call on 01.05.2024.”

On 15.04.2024, the order passed on 08.04.2024 was altered and then the defendants’ side evidence was closed and posted the matter to 01.05.2024. The reasons stated for non-appearance of the petitioners-defendants are that the 1^st petitioner was out of station and their counsel has undergone eye surgery. The said facts could have been treated on compassionate grounds and a second opportunity could have been given. The suit is of the year 2013, hence there may be urgency for disposal. However, said urgency cannot be such that only one opportunity is given for adducing defendants’ evidence followed by closing their evidence in case of failure when there is an error committed by the Court while passing docket order, dated 08.04.2024, the learned trial Court could have given an opportunity by passing a conditional order or by imposing costs.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order dated 24.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.775 of 2024 in O.S.No.74 of 2013 is set aside and the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The trial Court is directed to give an opportunity to the defendants to put forth their evidence. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

___________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 16.10.2025 Nit/rkk