IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

Present: Sri I.SRINIVASA MURTHY, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada.

Monday, this the 7th day of September, 2020.

IA.Nos. 195/2020 & 196/2020 in OS.253/2014 Between in both IAs.

1. Yalamanchili Ramesh, S/o.Mohana Rao, Hindu, Aged 63 years, Business, Dr.No.34, Tammarabandapalem, Khammam Road, Kodada, Nalgonda district.. 2. Yalamanchili Suresh, S/o.Mohana Rao, Hindu, aged 58 years, business, Presently residing at Plot No.321, HMT Sathavahana Nagar, Opp.KPHB Nagar, Opp.KPHB colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 3. Uppalapati Shakeela Rani, W/o.Seshagiri Rao, Hindu, Aged 56 years, House wife, R/o.Dr.No.8-3222/B/7/3-D44, Ameerpet, Madhunagar, Hyderabad. …Petitioners/plaintiffs.

And

1.Vellanki Nagabhushanam, S/o.Krishna Rao, Kanumuru village, . 2.Vellanki Jayasri, W/o.Gandhi Babu, Kanumuru village, Pamarru Mandal. 3.Vellanki Vijaya Krishna, S/o.Gandhi Babu, R/o.Kanumuru village, Pamarru Mandal. 4.Vellanki Venkata Krishna, S/o.Gandhi Babu, R/o.Kanumuru village, Pamarru Mandal. 5. Tatineni Syamala, W/o.Ramesh Chandra Babu, R/o.Kapileswra Puram village, Pamidimukkala Mandal. 6.Kodali Saileela, W/o.Vijaya Sai Murali, R/o.China Parupudi village of Mandal. 7. Puvvada Krishna Mohana Rao, S/o.Rama Subba Rao, R/o.Dr.No.1-330/c, Opposite Venkateswra Theater, , . 8.Allibilli gunnamma, W/o,.Kondala Rao, …..Respondents/ R/o.Sundaram peta, 2nd block, C/o.Radhika Defendants. Furniture, college Road, Vuyyuru.

These two petitions are come up on 01.09.2020 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri J.Bala Krishna Sastry, advocate for petitioners and of Sri G.L.N.V.Appaji, advocate for respondents 7 and 8 and R1 to R6 remained ex parte upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following: 2

COMMON ORDER

These two petitions are filed by the plaintiffs in the suit through e- filing. IA.195/2020 is filed to reopen the matter and IA.196/2020 is filed to recall D.W.1 for continuation of cross examination.

2. The case of the petitioners is as follows: The suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and other reliefs and that on 04.02.2020 this court recorded cross examination of D.W.1 in part and posted the matter to 11.02.2020 for continuation of cross examination at request of the counsel for the petitioners herein on payment of costs of Rs.50/- to

D.W.1. On 11.02.2020 the costs imposed were paid to D.W.1 as per the orders of this court, but on that day the counsel for the petitioners suffered from fever and motions and as such he could not attend the court and cross examine D.W.1 and on that day this court treated further cross examination of D.W.1 as Nil and posted the matter for further evidence of the respondents/defendants. There are no willful latches or negligence on the part of the petitioner in not cross examining D.W.1 in continuation on 11.02.2020. Hence, the present petitions.

3. Respondents 7 & 8/defendants 7& 8, who have been contesting the present suit, filed counter in both the petitions through e-filing, opposing the petitions and, inter alia, alleging as follows: On 11.02.2020 this court kept the matter aside after payment of costs during call work for continuation of cross examination of D.W.1 and thereafter the matter was called twice or thrice and finally the matter was called at 3.20 P.M., and since there was no representation thereafter for the petitioners/plaintiffs, this court observed that there were no grounds to grant further time and, therefore, treated the continuation of cross examination of D.W.1 as Nil. The contrary pleadings in the present petitions are, therefore, not correct. After passing of the said order by 3

this court, respondents herein adduced their further evidence by filing chief examination affidavit of D.W.2 and D.W.2 was also cross examined by the petitioners/plaintiffs on payment of costs and after closure of the evidence of the respondents herein, the matter was posted for arguments. Petitioners simply kept quiet and filed the present petitions after a long lapse of time without any justifiable cause and hence, the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard both sides through video conference.

5. Now the point for consideration is whether the suit can be reopened and D.W.1 can be recalled for continuation of cross examination by the petitioners/plaintiffs as prayed for?

POINT:

6. As seen from the record, on 04.02.2020 D.W.1 was cross examined in part by the learned counsel for the petitioners herein and at his request, continuation of cross examination of D.W.1 was adjourned to 11.02.2020 on payment of costs of Rs.50/- to D.W.1. On

11.02.2020 this court passed the following docket order:

“D.W.1 present. Plaintiffs called absent. No representation. In the morning costs paid by the plaintiffs and filed memo. Thereafter, there is no representation for plaintiffs. Waited till 3.20 P.M., No grounds to grant further time. Hence, continuation of cross examination is recorded nil. For further evidence of defendants 7 & 8 call on 18.02.2020.”

7. The suit docket further shows that on 18.02.2020, the chief examination affidavit of D.W.2 was filed and thereafter the matter underwent adjournments and ultimately on payment of costs, D.W.2 was cross examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs on 03.03.2020.

Thereafter, on 10.03.2020 the learned counsel for the respondents herein reported no further evidence and, therefore, the suit was posted for arguments to 26.03.2020. Since then the matter underwent 4

adjournments on account of lock down due to Covid situation and the present petitions are filed only on 13.08.2020 through e-filing.

8. The record shows that petitioners kept quiet without moving the court immediately after closer of the continuation of cross examination of D.W.1 and thereafter they in fact, cross examined D.W.2 also. Only when the matter is posted for arguments, petitioners came up with the present petitions.

9. However, the fact remains that the cross examination of D.W.1 was not completely done by the petitioners herein. The suit is filed for the reliefs of declaration that the sale deeds are null and void and they are not binding on the petitioners/plaintiffs. Therefore, in order to give a quietus to the litigation once for all and in order to dispose of the suit on merits, this court is of the considered opinion that one more opportunity can be given to the petitioners for continuation of cross examination of

D.W.1, particularly because it is pleaded in the present petitions that the counsel for the petitioners was unwell on 11.02.2020. It is no doubt true that the present petitions were not filed immediately thereafter and after closing of further cross examination of D.W.1, petitioners cross examined D.W.2 also. Admittedly, the present petitions are filed at the stage of arguments. Therefore, the present petitions can be allowed on certain terms and conditions. Point is answered accordingly.

10. In the result, both the petitions shall be allowed on condition of petitioners paying costs of Rs.200/- to D.W.1 and on condition of cross examining D.W.1 in continuation on the next date of hearing without seeking any further adjournment.

Dictated to Stenographer (Gr.III), transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this 7th day of September, 2020.

Sd/- I. Srinivsa Murthy, Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada. 5

Appendix of Evidence NIL

Sd/- I. Srinivasa Murthy, PSCJ/GDV.