Telangana High Court
CRP/2393/2025 of R. Rammohan Varma Vs B. Narsing Rao (died per LRs) on 14 November 2025
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2393 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 ol lhe Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2393 OF 2025
Petition under Article 227 ol lhe Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set-a-side the order passed in 1.A.No.938 ot 2025 in O.S.No.2'|0 of 2021 dt.18.6.2025 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.
Between:
1. R. Rammohan Varma, S/o. R. Ganesh Varma Aged 58 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 1-2-607151 , Plot No.13, (new no.495), SBH Colony, Behind DBR
Mills, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad.
2. Abramani Hanumanthu Rao, S/o. Pochaiah, Aged 53 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H No. 131-3412, Saipuri Colony, Near Malkajgiri Function Hall, Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
...Petitioner/Defendants
AND
1. B. Narsing Rao (died per LRs), Hyderabad.
2. R. Jayasri, W/o B. Narsing Rao Aged 52 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No.
5-4-4211,3rd Floor, JN Road, Opp. NTR Estate Abids, Hyderabad.
3. B. N. Anil Kumar, S/o. B. Narsing Rao Aged 52 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, R/o No. 29, Chesapeake Rd, lvlonmouth Jn. NJ, 08852 USA presently H.No.5-4-4211,3rd Floor, JN road, Opp. NTR Estate, Abids, Hyderabad.
4. B.N. Ajay Kumar, S/o. B. Narsing Rao, Aged 55 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, H.No. 3-12-1212, Ganesh Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad,
5. B. N. Vijay Kumar, S/o. Narsing Rao, Aged 57 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, R/o.
1-19-67, Road No.2, Goutham Nagar, Ivlalkajgiri.
... RespondenUPlaintiff
lA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the l r)umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court rr r,/ be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.210 of 2021 on th: 'ile of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-tMalkajgiri District rr (ushaiguda pendrng disposal of the main CRP and pass.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):
Sri. M V Hanumantlr L Rao
Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri P.Shashi Kiran The Court made the following: ORDER
h.
HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHI\TAN
CIVIL REVTSION PETITTON N0.2393 ()F 2025
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:
Heard Sri M.V. Hanurnantha Rao. leamed counsel for the petitioners/defendant Nos.2 and 3 and Sri P. Shashi Kiran. leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.2/plaintiff. I(espondent Nos.4 and 5 are defendant Nos.4 and 5 and they are not necessary par-ties to the present revision.
2. This revision is filed under Article 227 of thc Constitution ol India challenging the order dated 18.06.2025 in I.A.No.9i8 ot'2025 in O.S.No.2 l0 of 2021 by the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.
3. 2nd respondent has flted a suir vide O.S.No.2l0 ol 2021 against the petitioners, respondent Nos.4 and 5 hercin lor cancellation of registered sale deed and for consequential relieli. During pender-rcy of the said suit, the petitioners herein filed an application under Order I8 Rute l7 of CPC vide I.A.No.938 ol 2025 to recall C.W. I contending that their counsel was admitted in hospital due to ailmcnts like giddiness, severe gastritis problerr, fanrilial mediterranean fcver AD with symptoms of every day fever and suffered on 12.03.2025
-r with giddiness and therefore, sought for time to cro:;r -':xamine C.W. I as the said rvitness is an important witness.
4. 2'd respondenVpla intiff flled counter ()l) n)sirlg the said application stating that the petitioners did not ucr.ion satisfactory reasons and they have not fi led any document in ;'1 161 of the same seeking recall ol- CW.1.
5. Vidc irnpugned order dated 18.06.2025, ltrrned trial Court disrnissed the said application holding that the petiticl :rs herein lailed to mention any satisfactory reasons for recall ol' ( .W. I who is a doctor. Challenging the said order, the petitioners have filed the present revision.
6. As discussed supra, the respondent Nos. I to 3 filed the albresaid suit fbr cancellation of registered salt deed bcaring docrrment No. 1980 of 2020 dated 19.03.2020. Duli rg pendcncy of thc said suit. the petitioners herein have filed l.n I o.938 of'2025 under Order l8 Rule l7 to recall C.W.1 contendinrl that the rnatter was posted lbr cross-examination of C.W. I - doctor tc 2.03 .2025, on which date, his counsel was admitted in hospital as l: was sucldenly suffered with giddiness as he was also suffering witt other ailments like severc gastritis problem, familial mediterraneaLr t':ver AD with I I I I II
symptoms of every day fever etc. However, the petitioners have not filed any documents in proof of the same including mcdical prescriptions to show that their counsel admitted in hospital etc. in support of their contentions in the said application. However'. tlial Court dismissed the said apptication holding that C.W. I is an ol'ticial u,itness, he is just rvitness and guest witness, hence everyone should bestow to do today job.
7. The petitioners have not filed any medical record in proof of their contentions. However, the suit is filed for cancellation of rcgistered sale deeds. To do substantial justice, it is always proper to at'lord an opportunity to the petitioners to cross-examine thc C.W' I - the ofliciat witness. Though the petitioners have not tiled an)' document to show that their counsel was admitted in hospital, they have pleaded the same in paragraph No.2 of the aflldavit in I.A.No.935 of 2025. There is no doubt that C.W. I is an official n'itness, he is to be treated as guest witness. At the same time' learned trial Court has to afford an opportunity to the petitioners herein considering the said affidavit filed by the petitioners on oath. The trial C-our1 rnissed the said fact. Therefore, this Court is of the view that an opportunity shalt be given to the petitioners to cross-examine the - .1 C. W. I . During the course of hearing, it is brought to re notice of this Couft that the trial Court posted the said suit to 04.1 2.. 025.
8. In thc tight ol the same, this revision is : s;posed of. The impugned order dated 18.06.2025 passed in I.A.No )38 of 2025 in O.S.No.2 l0 ol'202 I by the leamed Principal Ser irr Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda, is set ,sride. The said I.A.No.938 ol' 2025 is allowed. Leamed trial Cc'lrt shall issue summons to ('.W. I on payment of batta. However'. -he petitioners shall complete cross-examination of C.W. I before t]r ' trial Couft on 04.12.2025 without seeking adjoumment, failing whirl , the trial Court shall proceed with the rnatter, in accordance with lalr, Consequently, pcnding miscellaneous petition:; if any, in this revision shall stand c losed sd/- S. I/ ALLIKARJUNA BAO ASl; STANT REGtSTI?AR To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal_Malkajgiri Dist c;t at Kushaiguda One CC to Sri. M V Hanumantha Rao, Advocate [OpUC] One CC to Sri. P.Shashi Kiran, Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies. YIR/PR Pru(
n'--_-".--
HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025
ORDER
CRP.No.2393 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION. ('. q:7 2 4 i: r.[] 7l)l z ->. v I . * .: '. ' 't{'.i.1.-' ( f ,.) 'l .: ) .: * '.'- OF,r "it= - ,.16.r rGtl* rEL,-l't