IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1422 of 2020

13^th FEBRUARY, 2026 Between:

M/s.Rangalakshmi Estate Pvt Ltd, rep. by its authorized representative, Dr.(Mrs) Santha Rao Narne, W/o.Late Col. Ranga Rao Narge (Retd), aged about 78 years, Occ: Business, R/o.86, Gunrock enclave, Secunderabad, Telangana.

...Petitioner/Defendant No.2.

and

1. Kandadi Narsi Reddy (died)

2. P.Bhaskar Reddy

3. Sandigari Basavaiah

4. Kandadi Ravinder Reddy

5. Mounika 6. R.Akhila ...Respondents

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

15.09.2020 passed in I.A.No.53 of 2020 in O.S.No.26 of 2012 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Bhongir (for short, the trial Court).

2. Heard Mr.B.Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner. No representation on behalf of respondents as well as Ms.R.Swarna Latha, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr.Gaddam Srinivas, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6. No representation on behalf of respondent No.2 despite service of notice. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner, who is Defendant No.2 in O.S.No.26 of 2012, filed this Civil Revision Petition challenging the order dated 15-09-2020 passed in I.A.No.53 of 2020 by the learned V Additional District Judge, Bhongir. He further contended that the original suit in O.S.No.26 of 2012 was filed by the Respondent No.1/plaintiff seeking cancellation of Agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney vide document No.5394 of 2008 dated 14-10-2008 registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Bibinagar, alleging that the document was obtained fraudulently without his knowledge.

4. It is further contended that the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser, who purchased the suit schedule property from respondent No.2/Defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 06-04-2009 after paying valid consideration. Since the date of purchase, the petitioner has been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property as its absolute owner. The plaintiff’s allegation of fraud relates to the execution of the Agreement of Sale-cum- Irrevocable GPA in favour of respondent No.2/Defendant No.1, but the plaintiff himself admitted that the document was registered before the Sub-Registrar and that he executed another document on the same day. It is further asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the document was also witnessed by the plaintiff’s sons and that the petitioner’s evidence is crucial for proper adjudication of the issues in the suit.

5. During the trial, the evidence of Defendant No.2 was closed on 27-11-2019. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking to reopen his evidence. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a counter in February 2020. However, due to the outbreak of COVID-19 and the lockdown, the matter was adjourned several times.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner alleges that the trial Court dismissed the application on 15-09-2020 during the lockdown period without giving an opportunity of hearing to either party and without assigning proper reasons, which reads as follows:

On this physical functioning of the court when this matter is called at 12-00pm.. there is no representation by both the parties. Suo moto perused the petitioner and counter. On perusal of the same the petitioner who is defendant no 2 sun the main suit on flimsy and frivolous grounds is seeking the reopening of the main case so as to lead evidence on its behalf. The petitioner was given ample time to put up its defence and evidence but it failed to utilize the same Now the stage in this case is for arguments on behalf of contesting defendants. Already three (3) witnesses are examined on behalf of the contesting witnesses. The affidavit of the petitioner says Not that the persons who lead the evidence are sailing with the contesting R1/plaintiff. He also talks about the existence of a tr