Common Order

1. Heard Smt. K. Annapurna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.3 and Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs and perused the material on record.

2. Since all these civil revision petitions are filed against the common order passed in I.A.Nos.631 of 2024, 756 of 2024, 757 of 2024 and 10 of 2025 in O.S.No.101 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Bhongir, dated 19.06.2025, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant No.3 submits that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Judge at Bhongir for perpetual injunction and the trial proceedings were completed and the matter was posted for Judgment and at that stage, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.631 of 2024, 756 of 2024, 757 of 2024 and 10 of 2025 seeking to reopen the case for reopening the evidence of D.W.1 by recalling D.W.1 and for receiving the original order copy in W.P.No.39321 of 2016 dated 30.09.2024 as it is essential to reopen the evidence of D.W.1 for the purpose of adducing additional evidence and for marking a copy of order passed by this Court in W.P.No.39321 of 2016 dated 30.09.2024 and the same were dismissed by the impugned common order. She submits that the trial Court has failed to consider the fact that auction was conducted by the petitioner and the successful bidder has paid the sale consideration and claiming right over the property and if the suit is disposed of without receiving the said order copy on record, it would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner being financer. She further submits that the required document is crucial to come to the conclusion whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is maintainable or not even though the suit is for injunction and requested to allow these revision petitions by setting aside the impugned common order passed by the Trial Court.

4. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs based on the counter submits that all the impugned applications are filed only to drag on the matter which will cause hardship to these respondents/plaintiffs. He further submits that as the petitioner has not assigned specific reasons to recall the evidence of D.W.1 and to receive the document and the matter was reserved for Judgment, the trial Court has rightly dismissed all the impugned applications and there is no need to interfere with the common order passed by the trial Court and requested to dismiss all these revision petitions.

5. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs has relied on the following Judgment;

1. K.K.Velusamy vs. N. Palanisamy (2011(1) SCC 275).

6. After hearing both sides and perusal of the record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are filed O.S.No.101 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Judge at Bhongir, for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property against the petitioner/defendant No.3 and the respondent Nos.3 to 6/defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 and 4. In the said suit, the petitioner filed I.A.Nos.631 of 2024, 756 of 2024, 757 of 2024 and 10 of 2025 to recall D.W.1 for adducing additional evidence and to receive the original order copy in W.P.No.39321 of 2016 dated 30.09.2024. The Court below held that the suit is at the stage of Judgment and the petitioner has not assigned specific reasons for recalling the evidence of D.W.1 and for receiving the document and dismissed all the I.As as devoid of merits by the impugned common order.

7. The respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs have filed suit for perpetual injunction under Section 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. In para Nos.2 and 3 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have stated that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 have executed General Power of Attorney and also agreement of sale and there is a dispute between the petitioner herein and the respondents with regard to execution of registered sale deed. The respondents herein have filed claim petition against the petitioner before the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Housing Societies, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad and the said claim petition was dismissed and subsequently, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and other occupiers preferred appeal in CTA No.38 of 2015 on the file of the Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad. In the earlier round of litigation before this Court, interlocutory orders in CTA No.38 of 2025 were subject matter and this Court has allowed W.P.No.39321 of 2016 on 30.09.2024. The dispute with regard to the petitioners and the respondents was discussed and given a finding about the General Power of Attorney claimed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. The said order is not available to the petitioner herein at the time of adducing the evidence. In view of the same, after disposal of W.P.No.39321 of 2026 on 30.09.2024, the petitioner filed these interlocutory applications to reopen and recall the evidence of D.W.1 and to mark the original order in W.P.No.39321 of 2016 dated 30.09.2024 in the suit. The said order has to receive to decide the suit in O.S.No.101 of 2016 and without considering the same, the trial Court has dismissed the interlocutory applications filed by the petitioner on the ground that the matter was posted for Judgment.

8. Learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs has relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Velusamy’s case (supra 1) in para 15. In fact, the said Judgment squarely apply to the facts for allowing the petitions filed by the petitioner/defendant No.3 and the relevant portion in para Nos.14, 15 and 16 is extracted as under;

               “14. The amended provisions of the Code contemplate and expect a trial court to hear the arguments immediately after the completion of evidence and then proceed to judgment. Therefore, it was unnecessary to have an express provision for re-opening the evidence to examine a fresh witness or for recalling any witness for further examination. But if there is a time gap between the completion of evidence and hearing of the arguments, for whatsoever reason, and if in that interregnum, a party comes across some evidence which he could not lay his hands earlier, or some evidence in regard to the conduct or action of the other party comes into existence, the court may in exercise of its inherent power under section 151 of the Code, permit the production of such evidence if it is relevant and necessary in the interest of justice, subject to such terms as the court may deem fit to impose.

               15. The learned counsel for respondent contended that once arguments are commenced, there could be no re-opening of evidence or recalling of any witness. This contention is raised by extending the convention that once arguments are concluded and the case is reserved for judgment, the court will not entertain any interlocutory application for any kind of relief. The need for the court to act in a manner to achieve the ends of justice (subject to the need to comply with the law) does not end when arguments are heard and judgment is reserved. If there is abuse of the process of the court, or if interests of justice require the court to do something or take note of something, the discretion to do those things does not disappear merely because the arguments are heard, either fully or partly. The convention that no application should be entertained once the trial or hearing is concluded and the case is reserved for judgment is a sound rule, but not a straitjacket formula. There can always be exceptions in exceptional or extra-ordinary circumstances, to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of court, subject to the limitation recognized with reference to exercise of power under section 151 of the Code. Be that as it may. In this case, the applications were made before the conclusion of the arguments.

               16. Neither the trial court nor the High court considered the question whether it was a fit case for exercise of discretion under section 151 or Order 18 Rule 17 of the Code. They have not considered whether the evidence sought to be produced would either assist in clarifying the evidence led on the issues or lead to a just and effective adjudication. Both the courts have mechanically dismissed the application only on the ground that the matter was already at the stage of final arguments and the application would have the effect of delaying the proceedings.

9. The above finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court states that the convention of no application should be entertained once the trial or hearing is concluded and the case is reserved for Judgment is a sound rule, but not a straitjacket formula. There can always be exceptions in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to meet the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of process of Court subject to the limitation recognized with reference to exercise of power under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code.

10. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to disposal of W.P.No.39321 of 2016 on 30.09.2024 by this Court and the same was not available to the petitioner in earlier point of time. Therefore, the trial Court ought to have allowed the Interlocutory Applications filed by the petitioner.

11. In the instant case, the executant of General Power of Attorney has filed petition before the Cooperative Tribunal, Hyderabad disputing the execution of the General Power of Attorney in favour of the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs and the same was the subject matter before this Court in W.P.No.39321 of 2016. Basing on the General Power of Attorney only, the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed the instant suit for injunction. The order of this Court in W.P.No.39321 of 2016 dated 30.09.2024 is very much necessary to prevent the abuse of process of Court. In view of the same, the Interlocutory Petitions filed by the petitioner have to be allowed and the trial Court has to reopen the evidence of D.W.1 for receiving and marking the orders of this Court in W.P.No.39321 of 2016 dated 30.09.2024.

12. It is settled law that mere receiving the document would not cause any prejudice to the other side. The relevancy of the document can be examined by the trial Court on the basis of evidence to be lead in the case. The Trial Court has to take a lenient view for receiving of documents and the document has to be examined after concluding the trial basing on the evidence. Therefore, the impugned common order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.Nos.631 of 2024, 756 of 2024, 757 of 2024 and 10 of 2025 in O.S.No.101 of 2016 is liable to be set aside and the petitions filed by the petitioner have to be allowed.

13. In view of the above findings, all the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed by setting aside the common order passed in I.A.Nos.631 of 2024, 756 of 2024, 757 of 2024 and 10 of 2025 in O.S.No.101 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Judge at Bhongir dated 19.06.2025 and consequently, I.A.Nos.631 of 2024, 756 of 2024, 757 of 2024 and 10 of 2025 in O.S.No.101 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Bhongir, are allowed. The Principal District Judge at Bhongir is directed to reopen the matter, recall the evidence of D.W.1 to mark a copy of order in W.P.No.39321 of 2015 dated 30.09.2024 and dispose of suit in O.S.No.101 of 2016 as per law within three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.

14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these civil revision petitions, shall stand closed.