CRP/120/2026 of D.Sunil Rufus, Vs P.Srinivas, on 6 February 2026

1. D.Sunil Rufus, S/o late Sri D.J.Rufus Aged about 61 yrs., Occ.Pastor R/o 10- 5-1&, Fateh Nagar Village Bala Nagar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 500018

2. Smt.Kamalakhmi Dalavai, W/o D.Sunil Rufus, Aged about 56 yrs., Teacher Fl/o 10-5-164, Fateh Nagar Village Bala Nagar Manda Malkajgiri District - 500018 Occ.Private l, Medchal- .. Revision Petitioners/ Petitioners in t.A. Defendants in O.S. AND P.Srinivas, S/o. P.Rajaiah Aged about 55 yrs., Occ. Business Rl/o 10-5-154, Fateh Nagar Village Bala Nagar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 500018 ...RESPONDENT/ Respondent in l.A Flaintiff in O.S. lA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 31 of 2024, on the file of the lll Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court, Medchal-tvlalkajgiri District at Kukapally.

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI AAKULA MANIK PRABHU

r;-: rt,i P' crvlL REvtstoN PETITIONNO:122oF 2026 petition Under Article 227 ot the Constitution of lndia against the order dated 15-12-2025 passed in ].A.No. 638 of 2025 in O.S.No. 31 ot 2024 on the fite of the Court of the lll Additaonat District and Sessions Judge,s Court, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. Between:

1. D.SunilRufus, S/o late.Sri D.J.Rufus Aged about 61 yrs., Occ.pastor Rl/o 10- 5-164,-Fabh Nagar Village Bala Nagai Mandal, MedLhaLMalkajgiri District - 500018

2. Smt.Kamalakhmi Dalavai, W/o D.Sunil Rufus, Aged about 56 yrs., Occ.private Teacher R/o 10-5-164, F-ateh Nagar Viilage Bira Nagar M6ndar, ueoctrat- Malkajgiri District - 5000'18 ...Revision PETITIONER/ petitioners in l.A. Defendants in O.S. AND

p. Srinivas, S/_o..P.Rajaiah fged.about 55yrs., Occ. Business Rl/o 10-5-,l54, Fateh Nagar Village Bala Nagar Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 500018 ...RESPONDENT/ Respondent in t.A. ptaintiff in O.S. IA NO:2 OF

petition urder section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filec in support of-the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceodings in o.s.No. 31 ol 2o24, on the file of the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge's Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukapally . Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. K. SAI BABU Counsel for the Respondent: SRI AAKULA MANIK PRABHU CIVIL REVIsloN PETITION NO: 140 OF 2026 petition lJnder Article 221 of lhe constitution of lndia against the order dated 1s-12-2o:15 passed in l.A.No. 't89 of 202s in o.s.No. z1 0{2024 on the fite of the court of the lll Additional District and sessions Judge,s court, MeJcnat-

Between:

late Sri D.J.Rufus Aged about 61 yrs., Occ.pastor Rl/o sar viIase Bata Nasar-Mandat; M;dciia-iM;[-jj#;Ei"iri"t

- 500018 D.Sunil Rufus, S/o 10-5-164, Fateh Na

2. smt.Kamalakhmi Dalavai, w./o.D.sunir Rufus, Aged about s6 yrs., occ.private il"j-"ffi ts%l'r;il33a5?l"nNllvirrase::F"U1',3lgflrlfir,J[{1;;]'"'" Petitioners in t.A Defendand il O.a:

AND P.Srinivas, S/o. P.Rajaiah Aged about 55 yrs., Occ. Business Rl/o 10-5-154, Fateh Nagar Village Bala Nagar Mandal, liedchal-Malkajgiri District - 500018 ...RESPONDENT/ RespondenU Respondent in l.A. / Plaintiff in O.S.

Counsel for the Respondent : SRI AAKULA MANIK PRABHU The Court made the following COMMON ORDER

I HTISH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HON'BLB SRI JUSTTCE K. LAKSHMAN EV F Datez 06.02.2026 Betrveen D.Sunil Rufus and another . .. .. ...Petitioners in three revisions and P. Srinivas .......respondent In three revisions This Court passed the following He:rrd sri K. Sai Babu, learned counser for the petitioners and Sri Aakule. Manik prabhu, rearned counsel for the respondent.

2. c RP Nos.l20 and r22 of 2026 are filed under Article 227 of the const:tution of India chailenging the common order dated 15.12.2025 passed in I.A.Nos.637 and 63g of 2025 in o.S.No.3l of 2024 by r.he learned tll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal N4alkajgiri District at Kukatpally, whereas cRp No.r40 of 2026 is filed aggrieved by the order dated r5.rz.2o2s passed in I.A.No.l81) of 2025 in o.s.No .3r of 2024 (ord o.S.No.4r9 of 20r t).

3. The respondent - praintiff filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioners herein for recovery of amount of Rs.75,g 7,440/_.The said N I I

suit was decreed ex parte on 25.04.2022. on the apptication vide I.A.No.l079 of 2022, filed by the petitioners, learned trial court set aside the said ex parte decree on 09. ll.zo23. Thereafter, respondent - plaintiff evidence was closed and the petitioners herein did not cross- examine P.ws. I and 2. Therefore, the petitioners have filed I.A.Nos.637 and 638 of 2025 to reopen the plaintiff s evidence and also to recall P.Ws.1 and 2 contending :-

i. They were affected with corona on o3.o5.zo2t and was taken treatment in the Hospital, his brother - in- law was also expired on 19.05.2021 with chronic disease, and after his death, his sister was also fallen sick and took treatment at his residence. Therefore, he could not contact his counsel and pursue the case.

ii. On 16.06.2022, on enquiry with his counsel, he came to know that due to non-cross-examination of P.ws.1 and 2 and also for non-appearance of the petitioners, the evidence of P.Ws.l and 2 was closed and ex parte decree was passed on 25.04.2022. iii. Thereafter, the suit was transferred to III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally in the year 2024, due to which they were not in a position to trace out their file.

J

iv. The documents filed by the plaintiff are false and fabricated and have r.o substance. v. The respondent - plaintiff had filed a complaint against petitic,ner No.l under Section 138 of N.I.Act before filing the suit and the same was dismissed. He has a good case.

4. with the said contentions, they sought to reopen the evidence of plaintiff and recall P.Ws.l and 2by recalling so as to facilitate them to cross-exa.mine P.Ws.l and 2 to prove their case.

5. Re:spondent - plaintiff filed counter in the said applications contending that the petitioners herein did not mention satisfactory reasons in filing the said applications. Despite granting opportunity, they failed to avail the same and failed to cross-examine PWs. I and 2.

6. Vide impugned order dated 15.12.2025, learned triar court dismissed the said applications holding that upon a critical examination, the reasons contended by the petitioners fail to inspire confidencr:. The alleged illness of the first petitioner in May 2021 is too remot: in time to justiff non-appearance in March-April 2022. The medi;al treatment of the spouse, which allegedly concluded in June 20212, does not explain the consecutive defaults commencing from 02.Ct3.2022. No documentary evidence in the form of medical I

certificates i.e. hospitalization records, or doctor's prescriptions were produced to substantiate their plea. In the absence of such corroboration, the averments remain self-serving and insufficient. The plea of ignorance due to non-communication from their previous counsel is equally unavailing. They successfully moved an application to set aside the ex parte decree of 25.04.2022. IJpon restoration, the suit was posted specifically for their evidence. They failed to avail of this second opportunity granted by the court. The plea of the petitioners cannot be considered on the ground that the petitioners slept over long time, now seek third opportunity to recall p.ws.l and 2 whose deadline had expired long before the first restoration. The stage of the suit is a paramount consideration. The suit is 13 years old. The plaintiffs closed their evidence in 2015. To re-open it now, after the defendants have forgone multiple opportunities, first for cross- examination, then for own evidence and when the suit is poised for final arguments, would cause grave prejudice to the plaintiffs. Therefore, the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioners.

7. They have also filed I.A.No.189 of 2025 in the said suir to receive certain documents i.e. l. Certified copy of release deed dated I

29.07 .2006, 2) Original affidavit, dated 08. 10.2009, 3) original cash receipt for Rs,.10,00,000/- dated 04.05.2007, 4) original cash receipt for Rs.5,00,000/-dated 14.06.2007 and certified copy of judgment dated 21.10.2014 in C.C.No.27l of 2010 contending:

i. Originally the persons i.e. G.Alice Metilda, G. Julious Ebenezer and G.Melkare Wincent are the absolute owners of the land to an extent of Ac. 35.06 gts, situated at Shamshabad Village and Gram Panchayat, Shamshabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. They have executed the General Power of Attorney dated 25.05.2006 in t-avour of I't petitioner and one Dr.Prakash for development of the said land.

ii. The r':spondent - plaintiff, being his close friend, happened as one of the r,vitnesses to the said GPA and proposed that he is inter:sted to invest the amounts in the said development.

iii. on 0l .07.2006,a sale deed was executed in respect of Ac.2.16 gts., in favour of Sunshine Developers and Builders as Prop,rietors on Kamalakshini Dalavai and Srinivas, vide docurnent No. 8473 of 2006.

iv. The respondent/plaintiff further said that he will invest an amc'unt of Rs. 8,00,000/- after registration, but he spent only v registration expenses to an extent of Rs. r,50,000/-. Despite demands, the plaintiff did not pay the balance amount but agreed to relinquish the rights accrued through sale deed dated 29-07.2006 and executed rerease deed on 29.07.2006. on 01.09.2006, the respondenr - plaintiff along with his business partner Mr. Balchander and other l0 gundas started threatening him to kill and forced him to give release deed amount and further extracted an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/-. when he expressed his inability, they threatened use to execute agreement of sale in respect of his house at MIG House 942, BFffiL for a total sale consideration of Rs. 31,00,000/- and asked to deduct the extracted illegal amount of Rs. 9,00,000/_ to be adjusted from the consideration Rs. 31,00,000/- and to that effect they had entered into an agreement sale, dated 01.09.2006. Then they have to pay an amount of Rs. 22,,00,000/- as remaining consideration to him and agreed to pay the said amount in the future. The respondent - plaintiff paid the said amount on different dates in total Rs. 13,28,000/- out of Rs. 31,00,000/-. Then he started again bargaining to reduce the sale consideration from vl.

Rs. 31,00,000/- to Rs. 25,00 000/- so that he can get the propefty for lesser amount. The respondent - plaintiff started pressrrring them to come and register by receiving the amount ofRs 11,72,0001-.

vii. After rsettlement of the entire transaction, the plaintiff had stolen a che,que from his house and filed the aforesaid case under Secticn 138 of N.I.Act.

viii. The documents sought to be received are genuine and are in the custc,dy of the plaintiff and as such they are necessary to prove their case.

8. with the aforesaid submissions, they sought to receive the said docum:nts.

9. Rr:spondent opposed the said application contending that the petitioners herein failed to explain the reasons for not filing the said documents along with their written staternent.

10. '/ide order dated r5.12.2025, learned trial court dismissed the said application holding that the documents were not filed along with the 'w'ritten statement and the petitioners have not explained the same with satisfactory and bona fide reasons.

11. Sri K.Sai Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the originally respondent - plaintiff filed the said suit in the year 201 I vide o.S.No.419 of 201 I on the fite of XIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. Thereafter, the same was transferred to III Additional District Judge, at Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District and re-numbered as O.S.No.3l of 2024. originatly respondent - plaintiff filed Photostat copy of agreement of sale and the trial Court marked the same as Ex.A.15 on 24.03.2015. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed CRP No.5758 of 2016 and this Court granted stay on 09.12.2016 and the same was continued from time to time and thereafter the same was vacated and the said CRP was disposed on 29.04.2022. He fairly admits that there are failures on the part of the petitioners in prosecuting the case. However, an opportunity may be given to them on certain conditions, so that they will cross-examine P.Ws. I and2.

12. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for respondent - plaintiff would contend that at every stage, there is delay on the part of the petitioners. On consideration of said aspects only, trial Court dismissed the aforesaid three lnterlocutory Applications vide impugned orders. ?' 2-/

13. In the light of the said submissions, it is apt to note that there is no dispute that the suit was filed in the year 201 I vide o.S.No.4l9 of 20Il on the file of xlll Additional Disrrict Judge, Ranga Reddy at L.B.Nagar. Thereafter, the same was transferred to tII Additional ])istrict Judge, ar Kukarpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District and re-num'cered as o.S.No.3l of 2024. It is also not in dispute that the said suit was decreed ex parte on 25.04.2022, on an application filed by thr: petitioner, the same was set aside and now the suit is posted for arguments to 18.03.2026.

14. I'he petitioners have specifically stated in the affidavit filed by them in support of I.A.Nos.637 and 63g of 2015 that rhey failed in cross-exarrining P.ws.1 and 2. They have suffered with corona and various ailments. In support of the same, they have filed medical certificates issued by BBR Hospital, Malla Reddy Hospital etc. They have alrea,ly filed written statement on 15.09.2011 itself. Affidavit in lieu of chief exanrination of p.w.r was fired on 22.06.2012. There is no dispute that despite granting liberty, the petitioners failed to cross- examine P.Ws.l and 2, even imposing costs of Rs.10,000/_.

l0

15. It is also apt to note that even p.w.l filed an application to recall him for the puqpose of leading further evidence. The same was allowed.

16. The aforesaid suit is filed for recovery of money. He has filed the said suit for recovery of money i.e. to refund of an amount of Rs.56,00,000/- received by the petitioners herein towards advance sale consideration. A cheque was issued to him and it was dishonoured. He has narrated the said facts in the plaint.

17. As discussed supra, the petitioners herein have filed written statement on 05.09.201 I denying the said facts. There is no doubt that the suit is of the year 20ll and the petitioners are not diligent in presenting the present suit. But in a matter like this, an opportunity has to be given to the parties to contest. To do substantial justice, it is necessary to afford an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 on imposition of certain condition to defend their case. Therefore, the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 in I.A.No.636 and 638 of 2025 in O.S.No.3l of 2024 passed by trial Court is liable to be set aside.

18. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, CRP Nos.120 and 122 of 2026 are allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.2025 in

/' I.A.No.637 and 638 of 2025 in O.S.No.31 of 2024 passed by learned +- ll III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally is set aside. I.A.Nos.637 and 638 of 2025 are allowed on praypsnt of costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the respondent - plaintiff by lhe petitioners. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is reopened. The petitioners shall cross-examine P.Ws.1 and 2 on 17.02.2026 and the trial Coun shall, on the apptication of petitioners or respondents shall advance the said suit from 18.03.2026 to 17.02.2026 on which date the pe';itioner to cross- examine the P.Ws.1 and 2, failing which, learned tria.l Court shalt decide O.S.No.3t of 2024 in accordance with law. 18-ii. CRP No.140 of 2026 is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.189 of 2025 in O.S.No.31 of 2024 by the trial Court is also set aside. I.A.No.189 of 2025 is closed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file application to receive ttre said documents if so advised and the learned trial Courl shall conr;ider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revisi'on' shall stand closed' sd/- L vrJAyA LAKSHMT, SISTANT REGISTRAR ITRUE COPY// sEcTroN oFFICER

1. The lll Additional District Judge, Medchal- tvlalkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

2. One C;C to SRl. K SAt BABU Advocate tOpUCl

3. One C:C to SRl. AAKULA MANIK PRABHU Advocate IOPUCI /f 4. Two CD Copies 'y To,

HIGH COURT DATED:06l,021it026 ( iHE 1 2 r[8 2026 _,.*,t'(. (,^ o *

COMMON ORDER

CRP.Nos.12O, 122and 140 ot20ZG ALLOWING THE ALL CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS * L

\L yb