IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD CORAM:

* HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2860 OF 2025 % Delivered on: 25-09-2025 Between # Mrs. Mallikireddy Vanamala .. Petitioner Vs.

$ Mr. Thokala Sampath Reddy & Others .. Respondents ! For Petitioner : Mr. C. Hari Preeth ^ For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao For Respondent Nos.2 to 9 : ---

< Gist : > Head Note : ? Cases Referred :

1. AIR 1990 Madras 237

2. 2008 (4) C. L.J. 196

3. 1993 (3) ALT 182 4. (2002) 10 SCC 184

5. 1996 SCC OnLine Mad.546

6. AIR 1985 Madras 183

7. C.R.P. No.5665 of 2017, decided on 15.12.2017 8. C.R.P No.1527 of 2018, decided on 27.04.2018 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2860 OF 2025

ORDER

Heard Mr. C. Hari Preeth, learned Counsel for the Petitioner -

defendant No.1 and Mr. Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Plaintiff. Respondent Nos.2 to 9 are not necessary parties as per the cause title.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article - 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 02.07.2025 in I.A. No.558 of 2024 in O.S. No.603 of 2011 passed by learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.

3. Respondent No.1 has filed a suit in O.S. No.603 of 2011 against the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein for declaration and perpetual injunction. Respondent Nos.8 and 9 herein being subsequent purchasers from defendant Nos.1 to 3 were impleaded as per the orders dated 15.12.2016 in I.A. No.335 of 2016.

4. Thus, the petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 9 are defendants, while respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to according to their rank in O.S. No.603 of 2011 before the trial Court.

5. In the said suit, on completion of plaintiff’s evidence, the trial Court posted the said suit for defendants’ evidence. At that stage, defendant No.1 filed an Interlocutory Application vide I.A. No.558 of 2024 under Order - XVIII, Rule - 3A read with Section - 151 of CPC permitting her to adduce her evidence later and also permit her to adduce her evidence through her other witnesses i.e., Mr. Thokala Jayapal Reddy as DW.1 in the said suit contending that she is suffering from knee joint pains and other ailments and taking treatment. Therefore, she is unable to appear before the Court. She sought permission to adduce her evidence later and permit defendant No.8 to examine as DW.1.

i) She further contended that after cross-examination of her other witnesses she will adduce her evidence as DW.2 in the said suit to prove her case.

ii) She has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination of defendant No.8 as DW.1.

6. The said application was opposed by the plaintiff contending that defendant No.1 has not filed a scrap of paper in support of her contention that she is suffering from joint knee pains. She is hale and healthy and pursuing her day-to-day activities. She is attending functions and ceremonies of relatives and villagers. The alleged knee joint pain would not in any way prevent her from attending the Court. Only under the compelling strong circumstances which are relevant and germane, Court can permit a party to examine her after her witness has been examined.

7. Vide order dated 02.07.2025, learned trial Court dismissed the said application holding that defendant No.1 has not filed any documentary evidence in proof of her contention that she is suffering from knee joint pain. Though the said Thokala Jayapal Reddy is defendant No.8 to the said suit, there are no compelling circumstances to the trial Court to accord permission to defendant No.1 to examine defendant No.8 as DW.1 first.

With the said findings, the trial Court dismissed the said application. 8. Challenging the said order, defendant No.1 filed the present revision contending that the trial Court committed grave error in dismissing the application without appreciating the purpose and object of Order -