I N THE HI GH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO DATE: 24.02.2026 CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.1798 OF 2025 Between:

Smt. Banothu Amala [

…Petitioner/ Plaintiff AND Malleboina Ramulu and two others.

…Respondents/ Defendants

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2025 passed in I.A.No.220 of 2025 in O.S.No.461 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon.

2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. G. Eswaraiah, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed O.S.No.461 of 2020 seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule ‘A’ and ‘B’ properties. The suit was at the stage of recording of evidence. While so, the petitioner filed I.A.No.220 of 2025 under Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking permission to allow her husband, Banothu Ramkoti Nayak, to give evidence on her behalf.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 clearly provides that in all civil proceedings, the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses. It is contended that the petitioner, owing to lack of knowledge of certain facts and circumstances relating to the suit schedule properties, seeks to have her husband give evidence as a competent witness on her behalf, and that such an arrangement does not amount to substitution of evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order of the trial Court and draws attention to paragraph 6.4 of the order, which reads as follows:

“Under Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides that husband and wife are competent witnesses for or against each other. However, the said provision relates to competency to give evidence and not to the substitution of evidence.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which reads as follows:

“120. Parties to civil suit and their wives or husbands - Husband or wife of person under criminal trial.

In all civil proceedings the parties to the suit, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit, shall be competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any person, the husband or wife of such person, respectively, shall be a competent witness.”

The provision makes it clear that the husband or wife of a party to a civil proceeding is a competent witness.

7. In the present case, the petitioner is not seeking substitution of her own evidence in an impermissible manner. She only intends to allow her husband to give evidence as a competent witness in support of her case as she does not know the facts relating to suit schedule properties. A party to a suit is entitled to examine any competent witness to substantiate the pleadings. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.220 of 2025 in O.S.No.461 of 2020, dated 24.04.2025 and the husband of the petitioner by name Banothu Ramkoti Nayak is permitted to give evidence on behalf of his wife as a witness by filing a separate affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. The said witness shall be subject to cross-examination by the respondents in accordance with law. Both parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court for the expeditious disposal of O.S.No.461 of 2020. The trial Court shall endeavour to complete the trial at the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand closed.

____________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J Date: 24.02.2026 HFM