Telangana High Court
CRP/489/2025 of P.Karunakar Reddy Vs M/s.Manisha Agri Bio-tech Pvt., Ltd. on 9 July 2026
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 489 OF 2025 Petition under Anicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the docket
[348s ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 489 OF 2025
Petition under Anicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the docket Orderdated25.01 .2025passedinO.S.No.l23Sof20l5onthefileoftheCourtofthe ll Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
Between:
P. Karunakar Reddy, S/o. P. Laxma Reddy, aged about 37 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Peddagudem Village, Pochampally Mandal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State ,PETITION EFUPLAINTIFF
AND
1. M/s. Manisha Agri Bio-tech Pvt., Ltd., Rep. by Managing Director, V. Krishna Rao Mannam, Registered office at Plot No.797-798, lllrd Floor, Mallesh yadav Land Mark Building, 100 Road, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad- 500081
2. Venkata Krishna Mannam, S/o. late. Venkateshwar Rao, R/o. Plot No.20, Yashodhara Nagar, SagarX Road, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad - 500074.
3. Saber Mohammed, S/o. Jaffar Mohammad, R/o. Flat No.105, Moghal Maharan, 11-5-15111, Red Hills, Hyderabad-500004.
4. Sama Srikanth Reddy, S/o. Sama Ramchandra Reddy, R/o. H.No.1-10-48/A- 508, Ashoka Ornata Apartments, Street No.2, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad
5. Mannam Venkata Ramana Rao (died),
(Respondent No.3 to 5 are Formal Parties to this petition)
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS
-.
Ff
l.A. NO: 1OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praylng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.123B of 2015 pending on the file of the Hon'ble llnd Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District Courts at L.B.Nagar pending disposal of the main C.R.P.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. S R Sanjeev Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri. T.S. Praveen kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : -- The Court made the following: OROER
4--&d
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON,BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.489 OF 2025
DATE:09.07.2026
Between:
P Karurrakar Reddy, s/o. P.l-axma Redclv, r/o.Peddagudeur village, Pochampalll' NIanclal, Nalgonda District, Telangana State.
Petitioner/ plaintiff
and
M/s. Manisha Agri Bio-I'ech Pvt. Ltd.,
Rep.by Managing Director, V.Krishna llao Marrrram, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Jubilee [{ills, Hyderabad ald four otlters.
Respondents/respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the docket order, dated 25.01.2025, tn appointing an Advocate- Commissioner to record the cross-examination of D.W.1 witness at Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh
2. As seen from the record, the Office raised four objections on 11.02.2025. On 72.02.2025, the learned counsel for petitioner resubmitted the CRP with the following clanfications: "1. Respondent No.5 died six months back even in the trial Court, thc death celLificate is not filecl bv dcfcndant yct.
-
2. As of non', no orders were passed as per direcfior.r dated 07.02.2025.
3. Objection (3) corrected
1. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are only formal parties to the case The batta has been paid due to oversight. Her-rce complied with all objections and resubmitted.'
3. The docket proceedings before this Cotrt, per se, clo not disclose the orders, if any, passed by this Court thereafter pursuant to the resubmission. However, the resubmission order is challenged now
4. Ilowever, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an Advocate-Commissioner was appointed for recording the cross- examination of D.W.1 witness and when on th3 date the matter came up before the trial Court on25.01.2025, the DW.1 present and the plaintiff counsel was not present and since the learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintif f did not appear on tl-re said date, the suit was adjourned, and an Advocate-Commissioner \vas appointed to record cross-examination of DW.1 at Amarar.at Andl.rra Pradesh. ,1,
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner w,ould contend that, the counsel for plaintiff r.r,ould cross-examine DW. t, if D.W.1 is present J before the learned trial Court on one more time. It is specifically contended that the petitioner/plaintiff shall proceed with the cross- examination of DW.1 and further assures that cross-examination of DW.L shall be concluded on the same day without seeking any further adjournment
6. Learned counsel for the respondcnt would contend that since DW.1 is worklng as a Government Pleader and apPearing in the Government matters in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, he is unable to attend the trial Court on u'orking davs as his pre-occupied with his duties and hereby consents for the appearing of DW'1 for cross-examination in the Court, provided if an appropriate date is (ixed by this Court
7. Be that as it may, though docket proceeding does not speak what was the order subsequent to the resubmission of case file on 12.02.2025, this Court, without going into the merits o[ the case, to meet the ends of justice, and as the consent given by the counsel for respondent, and for the convenience of DW.1, deems it appropriate to direct the DW.1 witness to appear bcfore the learned trial Court on 30.07.2026 at 10.30 a.m., and counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff - shall file a petition before the learned trial Court for cr.ss- examination of DtrV.1 in the Court along with an advancement petition, if required
'fhe learned counsel for the petitioner/ plaintif f shall CTOSS- examine DW.1 on that date and ensure com.:letion of cross_ examrnation vr.'ithout any dclay. 'rhe trial Court is directed to consider the request of the petitioner/plairtiff by passing appropriate orders. If the learned counsel for petit:oner /plaintifl for anv reason is not present and does not cross_exlrnines the DW.1 witness on the said date, the cross-examination of DW 1 shall be forfeited, and further application shall not be enter:ainecl
9. lVith the above observations, the Civil Revision petition stands disposed of. 'fhere shall be no order as to c()sts Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// To
1. The ll Additional District Judge Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar
2. One CC to Sri. T.S. Praveen Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri. S R Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate [OpUC]
4. Two CD Copies PR d* Sd/. C. DEEPIKA tssrsrANT REGTSTRAR \--.--- \ secnou oFFrcER
HIGH COURT DATED: 0910712026
ORDER
CRP.No.489 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRP o .-1HE s ( U J €r TA L ,A'T E t) a
) ,r) \.*\ t\\ ,+
za t ,_J g\ ltO t a\re