HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1505 and 1509 of 2022 Date: 06.05.2026 Between:

J.Arvind Rao and others …. Petitioners AND Karre Vinod Kumar and others …. Respondents

COMMON ORDER

Heard Sri T.Gangadhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri A.Praneeth, learned counsel representing Sri P.Lakshma Reddy, learned counsel on record appearing for the respondents.

2. These two Civil Revision Petitions are preferred by the petitioners aggrieved by the separate orders dated 24.06.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in I.A.Nos.517 and 518 of 2022 in O.S.No.37 of 2013. By the impugned orders, the learned Trial Court dismissed the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioners respectively seeking reopening of the suit and recall of DW1 for further cross-examination on the ground that the DW1 had already been sufficiently and that the proceedings could not be reopened merely on the ground that certain questions had not been put to the witness or that the earlier cross-examination had been conducted by a junior counsel.

3. Since both the revision petitions arise out of same suit, involve common questions of fact and law and assail interconnected orders, they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

I. BRIEF FACTS

4. The factual backdrop giving rise to the present revisions in brief, is as follows:

The petitioners/plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.37 of 2013 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession, cancellation of pattadar passbooks, perpetual injunction and a declaration that he registered sale deed in respect of suit schedule property is null and void. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs is that their father, late Vallabh Shastri never executed any sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. It is their specific case that the respondent/defendant No.6 impersonated late Vallabh Shastri and by falsely projecting himself as the vendor, fraudulently brought into existence a registered sale deed in favour of respondents/defendants Nos.1 to 5. During the course of trial, DW1 was examined and cross-examined, whereafter his evidence came to be closed. Subsequently, when the suit had reached the stage of arguments, the petitioners filed I.A.No.517 of 2022 under Section 151 CPC seeking reopening of the matter for the purpose of cross-examination of DW1 and I.A.No.518 of 2022 under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC seeking recall of DW1 for such further cross examination. Both the said applications were dismissed by the learned Trial Court by separate orders dated 24.06.2022. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been preferred.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioners/plaintiffs:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner’s father late Vallabh Shastri had never executed any sale deed nor sold the subject property to any person and that respondent No.6 impersonated late Vallabh Shastri and affixed his photograph on the registered sale deed while fraudulently projecting himself as the executants/vendor. It is further contended that late Vallabha Shastri, was an illiterate person and had in fact, never executed any such sale deed. According to the petitioners, the earlier cross-examination of DW1 conducted by the counsel on record did not effectively address the pleadings and material issues arising in the suit, resulting in several crucial aspects remaining unexplored. It is further submitted that permitting further cross-examination of DW1 would not cause any prejudice to the respondents and would, on the contrary, facilitate effective adjudication of the dispute.

6. It is further contended that the petitioners had filed Private Complaint against Respondents No.1 to 5 and others arising out of the same transaction. It is further contended t