THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2103 OF 2025

ORDER

I have heard Mr.K.Venumadhav, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/defendant aggrieved by the order dated 02.05.2025 passed in I.A.No. 257 of 2025 in O.S.No. 20 of 2019 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the respondent/plaintiff instituted a suit in O.S. No. 20 of 2019 seeking recovery of an amount of Rs.27,64,656/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the petitioner/defendant. The reliefs sought include the issuance of a preliminary and final decree for the sale of the schedule property in order to satisfy the decretal amount, inclusive of interest and costs. The plaintiff also prayed for a perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner/defendant and her family members from alienating or otherwise encumbering the schedule property.

During the course of trial, the matter was posted for further evidence on behalf of the petitioner/defendant. However, on the scheduled date, there was neither appearance by the petitioner/defendant nor representation, the opportunity to adduce further evidence was closed by the trial Court. Subsequently, the petitioner/defendant filed an application seeking an opportunity to adduce additional evidence. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court, resulting in the impugned order, against which the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s absence on the relevant date was neither willful nor deliberate, but was due to ill health. It is further contended that the opportunity to adduce additional evidence is vital for bringing the true facts on record, which would assist the Court in arriving at a just and proper decision in the matter. It is also argued that granting a single additional opportunity would not cause any prejudice to the respondent/plaintiff. Accordingly, a prayer is made to set aside the impugned order and permit the petitioner/defendant to adduce further evidence in support of defence.

5. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the material available on record.

6. Admittedly, the trial Court afforded the petitioner/defendant an opportunity to adduce further evidence and scheduled the matter for hearing on 20.03.2025. However, on that date, the petitioner/defendant failed to appear, and there was no representation as such, the opportunity to adduce further evidence was deemed forfeited and was accordingly closed.

7. The petitioner contends that the opportunity to present additional evidence is essential to substantiate her case and establish material facts that are critical for a just adjudication of the dispute. The impugned order also records that the cross-examination of DW-3 was closed on the same day, thereby giving rise to an inference that the petitioner/defendant had already initiated the process of adducing evidence and intended to further examine the witnesses.

8. Moreover, the suit is presently at the stage of trial, specifically during the presentation of the defendant’s evidence. Considering that the matter is still before the trial Court and has not proceeded to final adjudication, permitting the petitioner/defendant to adduce additional evidence would serve the interests of justice and ensure a fair trial.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 02.05.2025, passed in I.A. No. 257 of 2025 in O.S. No. 20 of 2019 by the learned II Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, is hereby set aside and the petitioner/defendant is granted an opportunity to adduce additional evidence by filing the chief-affidavits of the witnesses proposed to be examined, on or before the next date of hearing. Upon receipt of such affidavits, the trial Court shall fix a schedule for the cross-ex