Telangana High Court
CRP/1798/2025 of Smt. Banothu Amala Vs Malleboina Ramulu on 24 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETIT toN NO: 1798 OF 2025 Petrtion under Antcre 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITtoN NO: 1798 OF 2025
Petrtion under Antcre 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order daled 24 04 2025 passed rn I.A No 220 of 202s in o S. No 461 of 2o2o on the fire of the Court of thq Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon.
Between:
Smt. Banothu Amala, W/o. Ramakoti Nayak, aged 45 years, Occ Business, R/o H No 3-4513, Sapthagiri Colony Hasanparthy UanOat, Warangal Urban District
AND
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2025
l.A. NO: 2 OF 2025
Malleboina Ramulu, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged 63 years, Occ, agriculture, R/o Zafergudem Village Raghunthpally Mandil, Jangion District.
[\/ekala Ra1u, S/o Chandraiah, aged 36 years, Occ. agnculture, R/o Kanchanapally village, Raghunathapally tt/anOjl, Jangaon district.
[/ekala Lingam, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged 32 years, Occ. agnculture, R/o Kanchanapally viltage, Raghunathapally Mandal, Jangaon district
...Petitioner/Plaintiff
...Respondents/Defendants
Petition under section
.1 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit filed in support of the_petition, the High court may be pleased to grant STAy all further proceedings in o.s. No 461 or z02o on the fire oi court of ilie principar Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon.
Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the uigrr court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to file the plaint in os No 481 of zo2o on the fiie of court of the principal Junior Crvrl Judge at Jangaon frled by the respondent as ad,l tional material papers to adjudicate the above CRP No 1398 of 2025.
Counsel for the Petitioner
: Mr. Ajay Kumar Madisetty
: Mr. G Eswaraiah
Counsel for the Respondents
The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
DATE:24.O2.2026
CIVIL REVISION PETITI ON No.1798 OF 2O25
Between:
Smt. Banothu Amala
. .. Petitioner,/ Pla intiff
AND
Malleboina Ramulu and two others.
... Respondents/ Defendants
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
This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 24.O4.2025 passed in I.A.No.220 of 2025 in O.S.No.461 of 2020 on the File of the Court of the Principal lunior Civil -ludge at Jangaon
2. Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Madisetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, and iqr. 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.46l of 2020 seeking perpetual injunction l- tn was at the stage of recording of evidence. \A' ile so, the petitioner filed I.A.No,220 of 2025 under Sectior 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, seeking permission t I allow her respect of the suit schedule'A'and'B' proper- 3s. The suit husband, Banothu Ramkoti Nayak, to give evid: rce on her beha lf
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further - lbmits that Section 120 of the Indian Evidence Act, L872 cle I -ly provides that in all civil proceedings, the parties to the s(it, and the husband or wife of any party to the suit. shall bi competent suit schedule properties, seeks to have her h r;band give witnesses. It is contended that the petitioner, owiir; to lack of knowledge of certain facts and circumstances re.:ing to the supports the order of the trial Court and draws t ttention to evidence as a competent witness on her behalf, an I that such an arrangement does not amount to substitution oi . yidence.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the r:spondents 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 conl )etent witnesses for or against each other. Howevr-, the said provision relates to competency to give evidence and not to the substttution 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 tria l. In alt civil proceedings the parties to the and the husband or wife of any party to the shatl be competent witnesses. In criminal proceedings against any person, the husband or wife of such person, respectivetY, 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 tc 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 entitledtoexamineanycompetentwitnesstosUbstantiatethe sutt, suit, - -+ pleadings. Therefore, the order of the trial Court i. liable to be set a side
8. Accordingly, the Civrl Revision Petition s setting aside the order of the trial Court in I.A.Nc. in O.S.No.46l ol 2O2O, dated 24.04.2025 and tr: the petitioner by name Banothu Ramkoti Nayak rs give evidence on behalf of his wife as a witne's: separate affidavit in lieu of chief-examination. The shall be subject to cross-examination by the ri: accordance with law. Both partres are directed to :,) the trial Court for the expeditious disposal of C. 2020. The trial Court shall endeavour to compl€'t the earliest. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// As a sequel, miscellaneous applications penC r g, iI any, in this Civil Revisron Petition, shall stand closed. allowed by t2O of 2025 husband of rerm itted to by frling a ;aid witness )ondents in rperate with
i. No.461 of the trial at SD/ (.BHAVANI SWAMY ASI; STANT REGISTRAR t SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Jangaon.
2. One CC to Mr Ajay Kumar tvladisetty, Advocate [OPUC r
3. One CC to Mr. G Eswaraiah, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD CoPies DL/PSL F
HIGH COURT DATED: 2410212026 -{
ORDER
CRP.No.1798 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CRP a t \ E 5I4 )t P o (J 0 5 ilt ?o?6 Z t\g\'[