Common Order:

1. Since the parties and the lis involved in these revisions are one and the same, these revisions are heard together and being disposed of by the common order.

               (for sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are referred in the suits)

2. Heard Mr.S.Malla Rao, learned counsel for the Plaintiff No.1, Mr. K.Raghava Ramana, learned counsel appearing for Defendant No.1, Mr. G.Arun, learned counsel appearing for Defendant Nos.3 and 4, Smt. D.Pramada, learned counsel appearing for Plaintiff No.2.

3. These revisions are field under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as detailed below:

               i. CRP No.1398 of 2026 is filed by plaintiff No.1 assailing the order dated 26.03.2026 passed in I.A No.721 of 2025 in O.S No. 651 of 2006,

               ii. CRP No.1407 of 2026 is field by plaintiff No.1 assailing the order dated 26.03.2026 passed in I.A No. 722 of 2025 in O.S No. 651 of 2006,

               iii. CRP No.1410 of 2026 is field by plaintiff No.1 assailing the order dated 26.03.2026 passed in I.A No. 723 of 2025 in O.S No. 652 of 2006,

               iv. CRP No.1472 of 2026 is field by plaintiff No.1 assailing the order dated 26.03.2026 passed in I.A No.724 of 2025 in O.S No. 652 of 2006

               v. CRP No.1423 of 2026 is field by Defendant Nos.2 and 3 assailing the order dated 26.03.2026 passed in I.A No. 721 of 2025 in O.S No. 651 of 2006,

               vi. CRP No.1427 of 2026 is field by Defendant Nos.2 and 3 assailing the order dated 26.03.2026 passed in I.A No. 722 of 2025 in O.S No. 651 of 2006,

               vii. CRP No.1430 of 2026 is field by Defendant Nos.2 and 3 assailing the order dated 26.03.2026 passed in I.A No. 724 of 2025 in O.S No. 652 of 2006,

               viii. CRP No.1443 of 2026 is field by Defendant Nos.2 and 3 assailing the order dated 26.03.2026 passed in I.A No. 723 of 2025 in O.S No. 652 of 2006,

passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal.

4. Case of the plaintiff No.1 is that she filed a suit in O.S.No.651 of 2006 originally against Defendant No.1 for specific performance and perpetual injunction over the suit schedule A and B properties mentioned below:-

               “SUIT SCHEDULE –A PROPERTY

               All that agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.23 guntas in Sy.No.99, situated at Yellampet Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the boundaries specified therein.

               SUIT SCHEDULE –B PROPERTY

               All that agricultural land admeasuring Ac.3.00 guntas in Sy.No.90/1, situated at Dabeerpur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the boundaries specified therein.”

Whereas, she also filed a suit in O.S.No.652 of 2006 against Defendant No.1 for specific performance and perpetual injunction over the suit schedule A to C properties mentioned below:-

               “SUIT SCHEDULE –A PROPERTY

               Agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas in Sy.No.99, situated at Yellampet Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the boundaries specified therein.

               SUIT SCHEDULE –B PROPERTY

               Agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.38 guntas (Ac.1.20 guntas in Sy.No.97 and Ac.1.09 guntas in Sy.No.98) in Sy.No.97 and 98, situated at Dabeerpur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the boundaries specified therein.”

               SUIT SCHEDULE –C PROPERTY

               Agricultural land admeasuring Ac.6.03 guntas in Sy.No.90/P, situated at Dabeerpur Village, Medchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the boundaries specified therein.”

5. The Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were impleaded in the suits on the ground that they have purchased part of the suit schedule properties. Likewise, plaintiff No.2 was impleaded on the ground that plaintiff No.1 executed deed of assignment in his favour. The Plaintiff No.1 examined as P.W.1, the Plaintiff No. 2 examined as P.W.2 and husband of the Plaintiff No.1 examined as P.W.3. After closure of Plaintiffs’ evidence on 05.07.2024, the suit was posted to 12.07.2024 for Defendants’ evidence. The Defendant No.1 filed his evidence affidavit as D.W.1 on 30.07.2024 along with two applications in both the suits to receive certain documents and to lead secondary evidence. The said applications were allowed vide order dated 10.09.2024 and thereafter documents were marked through D.W.1 on 20.09.2024 and the matter was posted to 27.09.2024 for cross examination of D.W-1. Thereafter, at the request of learned counsel for Defendant No. 1, the matter was adjourned from time to time for marking of further documents through D.W.1. On 11.11.2024, Defendant No.1 filed I.A. No. 1306 of 2024 to receive documents in which plaintiff No.1 filed counter opposing the said application. The said application was allowed vide order dated 17.12.2024 and certain documents were marked on 06.01.2025. Thereafter, at the request of learned counsel for Defendant No.1, the matter was adjourned from time to time for cross examination of D.W-1. On 11.07.2025, the Trial Court appointed an Advocate - Commissioner to record cross- examination of D.W.1 and posted the matter to 25.07.2025. The Advocate - Commissioner fixed the date to record cross-examination of D.W.1 on 19.07.2025 but D.W.1 was not present for cross- examination on the said date.

6. At that stage, the Defendant No.1 filed the present interlocutory applications vide I.A.Nos.721 to 724 of 2025 in both the suits to reopen the evidence of the plaintiff No.1 and to recall P.W.1 for cross-examination on the ground that while preparing for cross-examination, he realized that, due to his advanced age and oversight, he had inadvertently failed to inform his counsel about the pendency of certain criminal proceedings involving the plaintiffs and relevant facts regarding monetary transactions and other relevant issues that are crucial for proper adjudication of the suit. His counsel was unable to frame necessary questions during the earlier cross-examination of plaintiff No. 1/P.W.1 on those crucial aspects.

7. It is further contended that, while going through the file during preparation of his cross-examination, he recollected that there were series of criminal cases pending in respect of the suit schedule properties and investigation is going on. The plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed their respective counters in the said applications opposing the reliefs sought.

8. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 26.03.2026 allowed the said Applications. The plaintiff No.1’ evidence is re-opened and P.W.1 is recalled for the purpose of cross-examination by the Defendant No.1, after that learned counsel for the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 also permitted to cross-examine P.W.1, if necessary, as their rights are effected, on the condition of the Defendant No.1 paying an amount of Rs.5000/- on each petition to P.W.1 on or before 09.04.2026 and the plaintiff’s evidence is re-opened and P.W.1 is recalled for the purpose of cross-examination by the Defendant No.1, after that Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are also permitted to cross-examine P.W.1.

9. Challenging the said orders, the plaintiff No.1 filed the present revisions.

10. The case of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 in CRP Nos.1423, 1427, 1430 and 1443 of 2026 is that the Plaintiff No. 1 examined herself as P.W.1 and was cross examined by Defendant No. 1 extensively, including the financial aspect raised by Defendant No.1 in the written statement. P.W.1 was also cross-examined. The Plaintiff No.2 was examined as P.W.2 and he was also cross examined by the Defendants. Subsequently, the husband of Plaintiff No.1 was examined as P.W.3 and was cross examined by the Defendants. Thereafter the Plaintiffs closed their evidence and the matter was posted for evidence of Defendant No.1 to 12.07.2024. The Defendant No. 1 filed her examination in chief on 30.07.2024. After allowing I.A.Nos. 896 and 897 of 2024 to receive additional documents and to lead secondary evidence, the Defendant No.1 appeared and got marked documents on his behalf. The Trial Court appointed an Advocate - Commissioner to record the evidence of D.W.1 but the D.W.1 with an intention to protract the matter filed the present applications on false grounds. These petitioners though not parties to the said applications, they filed common counter opposing the same. The said applications were allowed vide order dated 26.03.2026.

11. Challenging the said orders, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed these revisions.

12. As discussed supra, originally, the Plaintiff No.1 filed the aforesaid suit O.S.Nos.651 and 652 of 2006 against the Defendant No.1. Both the suits are for specific performance of agreement of sale and perpetual injunction. Plaintiff No.2 and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 were also impleaded in both the suits. The said suits were posted for cross-examination of D.W.1. At that stage, the Defendant No.1 filed I.A.Nos.721 to 724 of 2025 to reopen the evidence of Plaintiff No.1 and recall P.W.1 for cross-examination, contending that the suits are posted for Defendant No.1’s evidence, Defendant No.1 filed chief affidavit and marked documents and the matter was posted for cross-examination of Defendant No.1. While preparing for cross- examination, he realized that due to his advance age and oversight, he had inadvertently failed to inform/assist/instruct his counsel about the pendency of certain criminal proceedings involving the plaintiffs and relevant facts regarding monetary transactions and other relevant issues that are crucial for proper adjudication of the suit. As a result, his counsel was unable to frame necessary questions during the earlier cross-examination of plaintiff No. 1/P.W.1 on those crucial aspects. There are series of criminal cases pending in respect of the suit schedule property in both the suits. The CID and police department were carrying out investigation. The same also makes it imperative to seek recall of P.W.1 for further cross-examination. He is not trying to fill any lacunae in the case but merely intends to bring forth material and relevant facts that were inadvertently skipped earlier during the cross-examination of P.W.1. He is trying to assist the Court for effective and complete adjudication of the suits. Therefore, the Defendant No.1 sought to reopen the evidence of plaintiff No.1 and recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination by the Defendant No.1.

13. Both the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 opposed the said applications filed by the Defendant No.1 contending that Defendant No.1 filed the said applications at a belated stage, without mentioning satisfactory reasons, only to fill up lacunae. It is impermissible.

14. Vide impugned orders, learned trial Court allowed the said applications on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- on each petition, payable by the Defendant No.1 to P.W.1 on or before 09.04.2026 and the plaintiff’s evidence is re-opened and P.W.1 is recalled for the purpose of cross-examination by the Defendant No.1, after that Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are also permitted to cross-examine P.W.1, holding that cross-examination on the aspect of criminal case and monetary transactions which took place between the parties will helpful to the Court to adjudicate the issue which involved in the main suits. Challenging the said aspects, the Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed the present revisions.

15. This Court heard learned counsel for the parties extensively and gave thoughtful consideration of the same. Sri S.Malla Rao, learned counsel for the Plaintiff No.1 placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Nagamothu Sriharinath vs. Nagumothu Vani(1997 (5) ALT 209). Sri Raghava Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the Defendant No.1 placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in K.K.Velusamy vs. N.Palanisamy((2011) 11 SCR 31) and Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. Vs. B.Gurappa Naidu(2026 INSC 536).

16. As discussed supra, the petitioners filed the present revisions challenging the orders passed by the trial Court in the applications filed for re-opening the evidence of plaintiff No.1 and recalling P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination.

17. Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC deals with recall and examination of witness and it says the Court, may, at any stage of a suit recall any witness who has been examined and may (subject to the law of evidence for the time being in force) put such questions to him as the Court thinks fit.

18. It is apt to note that the power under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC is only to enable the Court to clarify any issue or doubts it may have in regard to the evidence led by the parties by recalling any witness either suo-moto or at the request of any party, so that the Court itself put questions to such witness and elicit answers. Once a witness is recalled for the purposes of such clarification, the Court may, of course, permit the parties to assist it by putting such questions. The power under Order 18 Rule 17 of CPC is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of a witness who has already been examined. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in K.K.Velusamy (supra).

19. It is also apt to note that the main purpose of Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC is to enable the Court to clarify any issues or doubts that may arise, before the Court, the Court may examine a witness either on its own motion or on an application filed by any of the parties to the suit. Prejudice is not a ground for exercise of power by a Court if re-examination of a witness has a bearing on the ultimate decision of the suit, the Trial Court may permit recall of such a witness for re-examination-in- chief with permission to the defendants to cross-examine the witness. It is ultimately within the Court's discretion, if it deems fit, to allow such an application filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC. The said principle was also laid down by the Apex Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (D) Th. Lrs vs Sharad Chand Prabhakar Gogate((2009) 4 SCC 410)

20. It is also apt to note that in K.K. Velusamy (supra), the Apex court had an occasion to deal with the power of Court under Section 151 of CPC to re-open evidence and recall of a witness under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC and also amended provisions of CPC extensively. The Apex Court held that the power under Section 151 of CPC and Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC is not intended to be used routinely invoked merely for the asking. If so used, it will defeat the very purpose of various amendments to the Code to expedite trials. But where the application is found to be bona fide and where the additional evidence, oral or documentary, will assist the court to clarify the evidence on the issues and will assist in rendering justice, and the court is satisfied that non-production earlier was for valid and sufficient reasons, the court may exercise its discretion to recall the witnesses or permit the fresh evidence. But if it does so, it should ensure that the process does not become a protracting tactic. The court should firstly award appropriate costs to the other party to compensate for the delay. Secondly the court should take up and complete the case within a fixed time schedule so that the delay is avoided. Thirdly if the application is found to be mischievous, or frivolous, or to cover up negligence or lacunae, it should be rejected with heavy costs. If the application is allowed and the evidence is permitted and ultimately the court finds that evidence was not genuine or relevant and did not warrant the reopening of the case recalling the witnesses, it can be made a ground for awarding exemplary costs apart from ordering prosecution if it involves fabrication of evidence. If the party had an opportunity to produce such evidence earlier but did not do so or if the evidence already led is clear and unambiguous, or if it comes to the conclusion that the object of the application is merely to protract the proceedings, the court should reject the application. If the evidence sought to be produced is an electronic record, the court may also listen to the recording before granting or rejecting the application.

21. It was further held that ideally, the recording of evidence should be continuous, followed by arguments, without any gap. Courts should constantly endeavour to follow such a time schedule. The amended Code expects them to do so. If that is done, applications for adjournments, re-opening, recalling, or interim measures could be avoided. The more the period of pendency, the more the number of interlocutory applications which in turn add to the period of pendency.

22. In Nagagothu Sriharinath (supra), the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, held that recalling of a witness for further cross-examination on the ground that the counsel did not put certain material questions to witness when he was cross-examined as he was not properly briefed by a party is not a ground for recall of a witness.

23. The sum and substance of the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments, more particularly, in K.K. Velusamy (supra) is that if the trial Court satisfied that the reasons mentioned by a party seeking recall of a witness for cross-examination, it can do so. The trial Court cannot use the said power routinely merely for asking.

24. In the light of the same, coming to the facts of the present case, as discussed supra, both the suits are filed by plaintiff No.1 seeking specific performance of agreement of sale and perpetual injunction and the suits are filed in the year 2006. The said suits are pending.

25. It is apt to note that both the petitioners and respondents are trying to blame each other stating that the suits are pending due to non-cooperation and the same are adjourned from time to time on the request made by them. In proof of the same, both of them filed list of dates including proceedings of trial Court in the aforesaid suits.

26. Perusal of the same would reveal that the suits are adjourned on the request made by both the parties. Therefore, at this stage, they cannot blame each other. However, Defendant No.1 filed the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications to reopen the evidence of plaintiff No.1 and recall P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination specifically contending that due to old age, he has not briefed his counsel properly for the purpose of cross-examination. The criminal proceedings are pending with regard to suit schedule properties involving the plaintiffs. Relevant facts regarding monetary transactions and other relevant issues are crucial for proper adjudication of the suit. His counsel was unable to frame necessary questions during the earlier cross-examination of plaintiff No. 1/P.W.1 on those crucial aspects. The CID and police department conducting investigation.

27. It is not in dispute that the criminal proceedings are pending between the parties with regard to suit schedule properties. Investigation was entrusted to CID. The Investigating Officer on completion of investigation laid charge sheet. Calendar Cases are pending. It is also not in dispute that the Defendant No.1 had filed suits against the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 seeking cancellation of the registered sale deeds executed by them in favour of Defendant Nos.2 and 3. The said suits are also pending.

28. It is also not in dispute that the Defendant No.1 is aged about 81 years for the present. He is a retired employee.

29. The aforesaid suits are for specific performance of agreement of sale and perpetual injunction.

30. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel appearing for Defendant Nos.2 and 3 that the Defendant No.1 had executed registered sale deed dated 06.07.2006 in favour Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in respect of part of the suit schedule property on receipt of sale consideration. Even then, they have filed a suit in O.S.No.90 of 2018 for cancellation of the said sale deeds. The said suit is pending.

31. It is also the specific contention of the learned counsel for the Defendant No.1 that in the event of Defendant No.1 losing the aforesaid suit, the Plaintiff No.2 will also lose its right over the property purchased from Defendant No.1 vide registered sale deed dated 06.07.2006. It is also the specific contention of the Defendant No.1 that there are financial transactions between the Defendant No.1 and husband of the Plaintiff No.1. He has misused the same and filed the aforesaid suits in collusion with his wife. On the complaint lodged by the Defendant No.1, police have registered crimes in the year 2012 and the investigation was entrusted to CID. On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer laid charge sheet. Defendant No.1 did not cross-examine P.W.1 extensively on the said aspects. He wants to cross-examine P.W.1. Therefore, Defendant No.1 is seeking to reopen the evidence of Plaintiff No.1 and to recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination.

32. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the Defendant No.1 was set ex parte once on 09.04.2007 and on the application filed by him, the same was set aside. He was permitted to contest the said suit. Thereafter, the aforesaid suit underwent several adjournments at the behest of both the parties. Therefore, they cannot blame each other for the delay. However, it is the discretionary power of the trial Court to reopen the evidence of Plaintiff No.1 and recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination if the trial Court satisfies that the Defendant No.1 mentioned satisfactory reasons.

33. In the present case, according to the trial Court, Defendant No.1 mentioned satisfactory reasons for the purpose of cross-examination of P.W.1 by reopening the evidence of Plaintiff No.1 and recalling P.W.1. On consideration of the said aspects and also considering the principle laid down by the Apex Court in K.K.Velusamy (supra), learned trial Court allowed the aforesaid applications on costs of Rs.5000/- on each petition payable by the Defendant No.1 to P.W.1 and reopened the evidence of the Plaintiff No.1 and recalled the P.W.1 for the purpose of cross-examination by the Defendant No.1 and after that Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are were also permitted to cross-examine P.W.1, if necessary as their rights are effected.

34. It is also the specific contention of the learned counsel that the Defendant No.1 is ready to pay the said costs and P.W.1 is not receiving. He will cooperate with the trial Court in disposal of the aforesaid suits strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

35. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff No.1 and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the plaintiff No.1 and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 will also cooperate with the trial court in disposal of the said suits strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

36. As discussed supra, the Plaintiff No.1 and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed the aforesaid revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned orders. The power of superintendence of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not to be exercised unless there has been an unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction, not vested in Court or tribunal. It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article cannot exercise its power as an appellate Court or substitute its own judgment in place of that of the subordinate Court to correct an error, which is not apparent on the face of the record. The High Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a Court of first appeal to re-appreciate or re-weigh the evidence or facts upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of the inferior Court or tribunal.

37. In the light of the same, as discussed supra, in the present case, on consideration of the entire facts, learned trial Court allowed the aforesaid Interlocutory Applications filed by Defendant No.1 for reopening of plaintiff No.1’s evidence and recall P.W.1 for further cross-examination. The impugned orders are reasoned. Therefore, the petitioners herein failed to make out any case to interfere with the said orders by this Court invoking its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

38. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, these revisions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

39. As discussed supra, the suit is of the year 2006, the trial Court shall make an endeavour to dispose of the said suits vide O.S.Nos.651 and 652 of 2006 strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, by conducting proceedings on day-to-day basis. The parties and their counsel shall cooperate with the trial Court in doing so. However, there is no order as to costs.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the revisions, shall stand closed.