##PAGE1##

1

I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

DATE: 27.01.2026

CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON Nos.3728 AND 3730 OF 2024

Betw een:

Bollam Nagachandeshwara Prasad.

…Petitioner/ Petitioner/ Plaintiff

AND

Cheerla Malla Reddy

…Respondent/ Respondent/ Defendant

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the orders

dated 08.11.2024 passed in I.A.No.496 of 2024 and I.A.No.499 of

2024 in O.S.No.2777 of 2022 respectively on the file of the Principal

Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.

2. Heard Mr. Narendar Jalli, learned counsel for the petitioner,

and Mr. J. Venkateswara Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner

filed O.S.No.2777 of 2022 for perpetual injunction restraining the

respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. During the course of

2

trial, the petitioner filed I.A.No.496 of 2024 under Order XVIII Rule

17 CPC seeking recall of PW1 for the limited purpose of marking

certain documents filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC. I.A.No.499

of 2024 was filed under Order VII Rule 14(3) CPC seeking to receive

the documents by condoning the delay.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the

trial Court dismissed I.A.No.496 of 2024 holding that PW1 had

already been cross-examined at length and that the petition was

filed only to fill up lacunae in the evidence. Insofar as I.A.No.499 of

2024 is concerned, the trial Court observed that no purpose would

be served in allowing the same, as the petitioner intended to mark

those documents through PW1, whose recall was declined.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that recall

of PW1 was sought only for a limited purpose of marking documents

and that no prejudice would be caused to the respondent.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that

the applications were filed at a belated stage after completion of

cross-examination, only to fill up the lacunae in the petitioner’s

case, and therefore the trial Court rightly dismissed the same.

7. A perusal of the record reveals that the suit was filed in the

year 2022. The petitioner had ample opportunity to file and mark

3

the documents at the appropriate stage. There is no specific

pleading in the plaint with regard to the documents now sought to

be introduced. Further, PW1 was subjected to cross-examination at

length. The applications were filed at a belated stage without any

satisfactory explanation for the delay.

8. The trial Court rightly considered the material on record and

concluded that the applications were filed only to fill up lacunae in

the petitioner’s case. In the circumstances, there is no ground to

interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

9. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

___________________________

NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

Date: 27.02.2026

HFM