Sri B Narayana v. Sri B Sanjay Kumar
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: P.SAM KOSHY
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2025-12-12. Sri B Narayana v. Sri B Sanjay Kumar. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
A \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA II AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVI SION PETITION NO:31 18 0F 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, Aggrieved by the Order dated 16t07t2025 passed in lA No. 585/2025 in O S. No. 406 of 2003, on the file of the XX V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Between: Sri B Narayana, S/o Late B. Balaiah, Aged 74yrs, Occ. Business, R/o H. No4- 7-7t23t1. Street No. 2, Annapurna colony, Nacharam, Uppal-500076, ... Petitioner AND 1 . Sri B Sanjay Kumar, S/o Late B . Ramulu, Aged 50 y19,-Occ- Business, R/o - -Q-g-ZAAl, AO'arsnnjgar, Hyderabad. ... i"' RespondenUPlaintiff' 2. Sri. B Ramulu, S/o Late B. Balaiah, (Died per Lrs Def No'5) 3. Sri. B. Shanti Kumar, s/o Late B. Ramulu, Aged 50 yrs, occ. Business, R/o 5-9- 22163, Ad arshnagar, HYderabad. 4. Smt.
Reshmi Kalla, wo Shantha Rain Kalla Aged 55 yrs, oqc-. |]gusewife, R/o 1S5, Cowell Sireui, ft*ont, Long lsland, Ner,rTYork, USn- 110035' 5. Smt. B. Lakshmi, w/o B. shanti Kumar, Aged 50 yrs, occ Housewife, occ Housewife, 6. Smt. B. Krupavathi, W/o Late B. Ramulu, Aged 70 yrs, R- R/o 5-g-22t63, Adarshnagar, Hyderabad'] [5&6 are nts Res Pondents/Defenda IA :1OF stated that in the circumstances Petition under section 151 CPC praying Court may be pleased to of the p"tltitit, tig in the affidavit fited in support f lSn the file of the o s of 2003 on grant stay of ail triit ry:106 "r'proceedrni. -i. court at Hyderabad pending finalization of Judge cit}/ ci-vrr xxv Additional chief the main Civil Revision Petition' Mr. CHAVALI RAMANAND' Advocate Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocate : Mr. CH. ANAND, Counsel for the ResPondent-l l, Advocate 4 & 6: Mr. RAKESH Counsel for the ResPondent- PRANATHI, 3 & 5: Ms. TSR. Counsel for the ResPondent- following: ORDER The Court made the f-', .
\ IN THB TIIGI{ COURT FOR 1'I{B STATE OF TELANGANA AT YDERABAT) THE HONOURAI}LE SIII JUSTTCE P. SAM KOSIIY ts tion N of 202 Date: I . 12. 202s Betleen: Mr. B. Narayana . . . Petitioner ANt) Mr. B. Sanjay Kumar and others . . Responclents ORDER. : Hoard chavidi Rarnanancl, Iearned counsel fbr the petitioner; Mr. ch.. /r. nand, learned counser flrlr respondent No. r; Mr. Rakesrr Sanghi, learned counser tbr responcre*t Nos. 4 ancr (r and Ms. T. S R. Pranathi, Iearned counser fbr respondent Nos. 3 ancr 5. 2. The instant civir Revision petition fired uncter Articre 227 of constitution of India assairing the order dated 16. 07. 2025 in I. A. No,585 of 2025 inO. S. No. 406 of 2003. ,' (-r 3. Vide impugned order, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the petition fired by the petitioner/defendant No. 6 under order I8 Rure 17 readwith Section l5r cpc seeking recaring of Pw' l a,d Dw. r rbr cross exarnination and reope,ing the evide,ce.
4' Perusal of the impugnecl order rvould go to show that learned Triar court itserf has taken due consideration of the same and have reacrred to the concrusion that the Dw. rs chief evidence is over and for cross examination, an Ad''cate commissioner has already been appointed and therefbre, there is no need for recaring the evidence of Dw. l. The defendant No. 6 petitioner - wourd have all the rights to cross-examine the witness before the Commissioner 5' So far as pw. r is concerned, trre triar court was of the view that since the additionar issues have been framed foilowing the counter claim filed by respondent No. l, the matter wourd be put for refutal evidence on behaltof plaintiff and when,the plaintiff is entering appearance for refutar evidence, the present petitioner/Defendant No. 6 shall be permitted to cross-examine him. f \ I J ,^.. -. 6.
At this juncture, learned counsel 1br the petitioner apprehends that if for any reason, the plaintiff does not enter appearance fbr refutal evidence, in that case, the petitioner may have a grie;vance. That stage does not arisc rvhen adclitional issues are fl'arneci. This Court presurnes that plaintill- u,ould be entering appearanc,: fbr refutal evidence and under the said circunrstances, the petitioner would be given a chance to cross-examine plaintift. So far as r. he clefendants defence is concenrecl, if for any reason, the plaintilf does not enters appearance or cloes not leacl refutal evide,ce thc petitioner would be at libcrty to take appropriate recourse in accordance to law. 7 - The impugned order, at this juncture, does not rvarrants any interference. Accordingly, the present civil Revision petition fails anc, stands dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, srrail stand closed. No order as to costs. SD/- A.
JAYASR EE ASSISTANT REGIS \ IITRUE COPYII |Or sEcnoil oFFlcER 1 Ihe XX V Additional Chief 2. One Judge, city CC to Mr. civit court CHAVAI, at Hyderabad 3. RAMA One NAND, CC: to Mr. Advocate CH. IOPUC] . ,4. ) i ii i I i 4. One GC to tr/r. RAKESH SANGH|, Advocate [opUC] 5. One'CC to t\Is. TSR. PRANATHt, Advocate topucl \ 6. Two CD Copies RC/PSL s I I - . iil,-. -i'-;,... r"'. -:lrr-:'r, I HIGH COURT I DATED: '1211212025 l ,1 ot\ THE s t 1' t (J t 2 7 l. t8 lutb z * Ot 'r-;P1r:0 ORDER CRP. No. 3118 of 2025 Accordlingly, this Civil Revision Petition Fails & Stands Dismissed. i I l; li ! i l ,i I { I
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.