Common Order

1. Since the issue in the instant civil revisions petitions is one and the same and parties thereto are also same, the instant Civil Revision Petitions are being heard and disposed of by this Common Order.

2. Civil Revision Petition No.4573 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to set aside the impugned Order dated 25.11.2025 in I.A.No.592 of 2025 in O.S.No.316 of 2009; and Civil Revision Petition No.4591 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying the Court to set aside the Docket Order dated 28.11.2025 in I.A.No.680 of 2025 in O.S.No.316 of 2009 (for short, the ‘impugned orders’). The said orders were passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. Heard Mr.Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Revisions; and Mr.V. Satyanarayana Prasad, learned counsel for the respondents, in both the Revisions.

4. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.4573 of 2025 are discussed herein.

5. The petitioner herein is plaintiff in the above suit, viz., O.S.No.316 of 2009. He filed the said suit under Sections 34 to 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 seeking for grant of decree by declaring that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner on the basis of the charge-sheet bearing reference No.US/HR/238/701/2008, dated 29.11.2008, issued by respondent No.2 herein as null and void, and for other reliefs.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on an earlier occasion when the petitioner herein had filed an I.A. viz., I.A.No.218 of 2022 in O.S.No.316 of 2009, before the Trial Court to summon the Managing Director of respondent No.1-Company, the Trial Court was pleased to allow the said I.A. vide order dated 09.11.2022 in I.A.No.218 of 2022 in O.S.No.316 of 2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein have approached this Court by filing Civil Revision Petition No.3072 of 2022; and vide order dated 11.03.2025, a learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said Civil Revision Petition and set aside the order dated 09.11.2022 in I.A.No.218 of 2022 holding that the Managing Director of the Company by name Mr. Jay Soman was not personally involved in issuance of the impugned termination order and therefore he was not a necessary witness to be summoned.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that subsequently the petitioner had filed I.A.No.592 of 2025 in O.S.No.316 of 2009 with a prayer to summon Mr. K.D.P. Murthy of respondent No.1-Company to depose before the Trial Court so as to extract the grounds and circumstances under which the order of termination dated 03.12.2010 was passed by Mr. K.D.P. Murthy, Chief Finance Officer and Secretary of respondent No.1-Company.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the evidence of Mr. K.D.P. Murthy (DW.1) is necessary since at a couple of places DW.1 had himself mentioned that the then Company Secretary was the best person to speak on the questions put to DW.1, more particularly, insofar as Documents Exs.B.23 to B.26 and Ex.B.28, are concerned. According to him, the order of termination also is one which had been issued under the signatures of Mr. K.D.P. Murthy, whom the petitioner intends to be summoned as a witness.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that it is a case where the order of termination was passed after following due procedure as prescribed under the regulations governing the respondent No.1-Company. It was passed after a detailed departmental enquiry was conducted on the petitioner; however, the petitioner deliberately refused to cooperate in the departmental agency, and therefore contended that the petitioner does not have any merits to raise the above grounds.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the very purpose of summoning Mr. K.D.P. Murthy, (D.W.1) is nothing but for collection of evidence in support of petitioner which otherwise should not be permitted since it is the petitioner who is plaintiff and it was the responsibility of petitioner / plaintiff to stand on his own legs by leading evidence to hold that the action on the part of respondents being bad rather depending upon the evidence of Mr. K.D.P. Murthy, who is to be summoned on behalf of the department, which the department itself has not cited as a witness. He further contended that the Mr. K.D.P. Murthy was not involved in the departmental proceedings except for the fact that the order of termination was signed by him and that too under the delegated powers that were conferred on him and other than that, Mr. K.D.P. Murthy is not in any manner connected with the termination order which is under challenge in the suit before the Trial Court; and therefore, prayed that there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petition and the same may be dismissed.

11. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on a perusal of the records, true it is that the suit is one which was filed by the petitioner whose services stood terminated by the order of termination issued by respondent No.1-Company. The primary responsibility of proving the case falls squarely upon the person who had approached the Court, i.e., the petitioner himself. However, since the instant matter arises out of disciplinary proceedings and more particularly since the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the action under challenge is one which had been passed after a detailed departmental enquiry was conducted, it therefore becomes necessary for the petitioner (plaintiff) to ensure that he gets sufficient opportunity to cross-examine the witness so as to establish his case that the action on the part of respondent No.1 / Company in issuing the order of termination was out of mala fides and a bona fide action for an alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner (plaintiff).

12. Further, when we read the evidence of Mr. K.D.P. Murthy (DW.1), it goes to establish that on more than a couple of occasions D.W.1 himself had stated that it is Mr. K.D.P. Murthy who is the competent person to answer the query of the petitioner. Therefore, in the light of the said stand taken by the solitary witness examined by the respondents, the prayer put forth by the petitioner for summoning Mr. K.D.P. Murthy cannot be said to be erroneous or with an intention of protracting the proceedings before the Trial Court. In any case, the petitioner is not in any manner put to an advantageous position by protracting the proceedings rather the early conclusion of the trial is what is going to be more beneficial for the petitioner.

13. Therefore, for the given circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be more appropriate if the Trial Court would summon Mr. K.D.P. Murthy and allow the petitioner to cross-examine Mr. K.D.P. Murthy on a given date after which the evidence could be closed and the matter could still be decided on merits by the trial Court.

14. For all the aforesaid said reasons, this Court is therefore inclined to allow the Civil Revision Petition No.4573 of 2025 by setting aside the order dated 25.11.2025 in I.A.No.592 of 2025 in O.S.No.316 of 2009 passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. Accordingly, I.A.No.592 of 2025 in O.S.No.316 of 2009 stands allowed. The petitioner herein is permitted to examine Mr. K.D.P. Murthy as a witness. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that Mr. K.D.P. Murthy is overseas and is currently in Australia on personal reasons and that he would be back by 21st of January, 2026. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to adjourn the matter to a date which is convenient for filing Affidavit-in-Chief by Mr. K.D.P. Murthy, and thereafter fix the matter for cross-examination and conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

15. At this juncture, this Court is of the view that since the suit is of the year 2009 it may not be proper to prolong the suit any further unnecessarily. Therefore, this Court directs the learned counsel for the respondents to ensure that affidavit-in-chief of Mr. K.D.P. Murthy be positively filed immediately on a date after Mr.K.D.P. Murthy comes back to India. The petitioner herein shall also ensure that he shall ask only the relevant questions to the said witness relevant to the relief in the suit and also to the extent of involvement of Mr. K.D.P. Murthy in any of the proceedings pertaining to the order of termination of the petitioner which is under challenge in the suit.

16. Meanwhile, the Trial Court is also ordered to defer passing of final orders in the suit till the above exercise is concluded.

17. With these observations, Civil Revision Petition No.4573 of 2025 stands allowed. No costs.

Civil Revision Petition No.4591 of 2025 :

18. As regards, Civil Revision Petition No.4591 of 2025 is concerned, since this Court has taken up the connected matter, viz., Civil Revision Petition No.4573 of 2025 wherein I.A.No.593 of 2025 was rejected and the matter was posted for arguments while allowing the said Civil Revision Petition, and this Court had also directed the Trial Court to examine Mr.K.D.P. Murthy as a witness and decide the case on merits, therefore, the challenge in the instant Civil Revision Petition No.4591 of 2025 so far as forfeiture of the right of petitioner to argue would automatically stands set aside. However, so far as the costs those were imposed earlier by the Trial Court would not warrant any interference by this Court and the petitioner herein shall pay the costs as imposed by the Trial Court. However, it is made clear that after the respondents file affidavit-in-chief of Mr. K.D.P. Murthy, the petitioner shall co-operate in the said matter forthwith and the Trial Court is expected to pronounce judgment as expeditiously as possible.

19. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition No.4591 of 2025 also stands allowed. No costs.

20. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.