IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.733 and 756 OF 2026 DATE OF ORDER: 13.03.2026 CRP No.733 of 2026 Between:

K.Reddaiah.

Petitioner.

AND M.Uma Maheswara Rao (Died per Lr)

Respondent.

COMMON ORDER

Heard Mr.D.Pochaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.V.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. These two civil revision petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the common order dated 04.02.2026 in I.A.Nos.679 and 678 of 2025 in O.S.No.97 of 2017 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal – Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

3. Respondent is the plaintiff and petitioner herein is the sole defendant. Respondent has filed the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2017 seeking cancellation of registered sale deed bearing document No.10348 of 2016, dated 09.09.2016. Thereafter, he filed I.A. No.985 of 2017 seeking conversion of the said suit from cancellation of registered sale deed to recovery of money of Rs.34,59,600/-. The said I.A. was allowed on 28.11.2018.

4. During the pendency of the said suit, petitioner has filed two interlocutory applications vide I.A.Nos.679 and 678 of 2025 in the said suit under Order 18 Rule 17 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff and recall PW.1 for further cross-examination contending as follows:

i) Plaintiff is doing construction business and there are important questions which have to be put to him in respect of the property, which was purchased from the father of plaintiff, who is none other than plaintiff in the suit;

ii) Plaintiff had changed the formation of suit from one prayer to another prayer and there are several questions which have to be covered to clear the ambiguity in respect of the suit and further the incenses of the petitioner; and iii) Petitioner/defendant has to establish before the trial Court by putting several important questions which are not asked PW.1 and which are very much important to disprove the claim of the respondent.

5. The said applications were opposed by the respondent contending that despite granting opportunity to the petitioner herein, he did not file the aforesaid applications explaining proper reasons and there is a delay of three years.

6. Vide the impugned common order dated 04.02.2026, learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid applications holding that there is extensive and unexplained delay, the stage at which the applications are filed, and the vague and unsubstantiated grounds presented and the petitioner lacks bona fides. The conduct of the petitioner reflects a lack of diligence and an attempt to derail the timely conclusion of trial. Challenging the said common order, petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petitions.

7. Mr. D.Pochaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the respondent has changed the nature of suit from cancellation of registered sale deed to recovery of money. Therefore, it is necessary to the petitioner to disprove the said claim. There is no delay. Petitioner is co-operating with the trial Court to conclude the trial. Without considering the said contentions, learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid two applications.

8. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that there is an abnormal delay in filing the said applications and on consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court dismissed both the applications. There is no error in it.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion and perusal of record would reveal that initially the suit was filed for cancellation of sale deed bearing document No.10348 of 2016, dated 09.09.2016. Thereafter, he sought for amendment i.e., from cancellation of registered sale deed to recovery of money of Rs.34,59,600/-. The said application was allowed on 28.11.2018. Thereafter, the evidence of PW.1 was concluded on 23.12.2022 itself. The evidence of PW.2 was