HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3867 of 2023 Date: 13.02.2026 Between:

The Church of South India Trust and others …. Petitioners AND Vijay Sahara and others ….Respondents

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioners/defendants assailing the docket order dated 26.12.2023 in O.S. No.11 of 2024 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Nizamabad (for short ‘the learned Trial Court’). 2. The respondents/plaintiffs instituted O.S. No.11 of 2014 on the file of the learned Prl. District Judge, Nizamabad seeking the relief of specific performance of contract in respect of subject property. The said suit was initially disposed of by judgment dated 12.02.2015. Subsequently, the suit was restored on 29-08-2023. Thereafter, notices were issued, written statement was taken on record, issues were framed on 13.10.2023 and the matter was posted for trial. The petitioners examined PW-1 and PW-2. Upon completion of evidence on behalf of plaintiffs, the learned Trial Court, by docket order dated 26.03.2023, posted the matter to 09.01.2024 under the caption ‘hearing for judgment’.

3. The grievance of the petitioners/defendants is that the suit was posted under the caption ‘hearing for judgment’ without affording them an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and also to adduce evidence on behalf of the defendants. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the defendants against the docket order dated 26.03.2023 passed by the Trial Court.

4. Heard Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri A. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and Sri Ch. Siddhartha Sarma, learned counsel representing Sri B. Shiva Teja, learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Sri J. Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submits that the learned Trial Court failed to adhere not only the principles of natural justice, which are inherent in all judicial proceedings, but also to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Civil Rules of Practice. It is contended that though the junior counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants was present before the Trial Court on 26.12.2023 and sought to file an adjournment petition, while bringing to the notice of the Court certain serious procedural irregularities, the learned Trial Court declined to receive the same, treated the arguments of the plaintiffs as heard, and posted the suit for judgment on 09.01.2024, despite the fact that the adjournment petition was thereafter filed in the concerned section/office of the learned Trial Court.

6. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Trial Court proceeded on an erroneous assumption as if the petitioners/defendants were set ex parte and that the plaintiff was leading ex parte evidence. In fact, the earlier ex parte decree dated 12.02.2015 had already been set aside, pursuant to order passed in CRP No.2204 of 2022 dated 01.02.2023. Thereafter, the written statement was filed and issues were also framed on 13.10.2023, from which date the matter was posted to 01.11.2023 for trial. In such circumstances, the defendants were entitled to participate fully in the trial.

7. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the learned Trial Court also declined to hear the representation made on behalf of the petitioners/defendants on 26.12.2023 and proceed further thereby completely denying them an effective opportunity of participating in the trial, leading to a clear denial of fair opportunity and violation of the principles of natural justice.

8. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the affidavits of evidence, namely the chief affidavits of PW-1 and PW-2, were not served either on the defendants or on their co