IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3945 of 2025 DATE: 20.01.2026 Between:

Ajay Rajendra Wadiyar.

...Petitioner AND Praveen Laxmidas Patel and four others.

….Respondents

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff challenging the docket order dated 15.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.354 of 2025 in O.S.No.17 of 2019 by the learned V Additional District Judge at Bodhan, whereby and whereunder, the trial Court allowed the said I.A filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein/defendant Nos.1 to 4 seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to record the evidence of respondent No.1 as DW1.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff strenuously argued that the trial Court passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner on the very day the application was filed. It is contended that while the counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court received a copy of the petition and endorsed a request for time to file a counter, the trial Court allowed the petition without affording any opportunity to contest the matter. It is further contended that the respondents suppressed the fact that an earlier identical application vide I.A.No.180 of 2023, was filed for the same relief and was not pressed, which acts as a bar to the present application under Order XXIII Rule 1(4) read with Section 141 of the CPC. The learned counsel also pointed out that the affidavit supporting the application was vague as it failed to specify the particular place for recording evidence, rendering the order effectively unimplementable.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants would contend that respondent No.1 is 79 years old and is suffering from severe health conditions including blood pressure, diabetes, prostate enlargement, and knee pain, which make him unable to travel 300 kilometers to Bodhan. He argued that the earlier application was not pressed because the respondent's health was temporarily better at that time, but his condition has since deteriorated, the present application has been filed. It is further contended that the principle of res judicata does not apply to interlocutory applications of this nature, and the trial court exercised its inherent powers under Section 151 of the CPC to ensure the ends of justice.

4. Upon comprehensive review of the record and after hearing the submissions of both sides, this Court finds that the trial Court has committed a significant procedural error. The record indicates that the application for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was allowed on 15-10-2025, the very same day it was instituted by the respondents. Although the counsel for the petitioner before the trial Court received the petition and explicitly requested time to file a counter on the docket, the learned trial Judge proceeded to pass orders immediately. This summary procedure effectively denied the petitioner, the right to be heard and to contest the factual assertions made in the respondents’ affidavit. The failure to provide a reasonable opportunity for filing a counter is a manifest violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedural safeguards provided under the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court also failed to consider that a similar prayer for a commissioner was previously rejected by this Court in CRP No.282 of 2024 involving the same parties, wherein it was observed that the discretion to appoint a commissioner must be exercised with circumspection.

5. For the aforesaid reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The impugned docket order dated 15-10-2025 passed in I.A.No.354 of 2025 in O.S.No.17 of 2019 by the trial Court is set aside. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the said I.A.No.354 of

2025 afresh on merits, in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. No order as