The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders dt.04.1'1 .2015 passed in lA No.475l2014 in OS No.31412O14 on the file of Vll Addl.Junior Civil Judge at Warangal and modified ordered dt.Ol.O7.2O2O passed in CMA No.7'1i2015 on the file of I Addl.District Judge, Warangal. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. I & 2: SRl. M. RAVINDRI\ CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 168 OF 2021 Petition under Anide 227 of the constitution of lndia ag grieved by the Order dated 01-07-2020 passed in C.M.A.No.71 ol 2015 on the f I r of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Warangal preferred : gainst the order dated 04-11-2015 passed in 1.A.No.475l2015 in O.S.No,3'. 12014 on the file of court of the Vll Additional Junior Civil Judge, at Warangal. Between:

1. Gudelly Pushpa, Wio. Sambaiah, aged 49 years Rio H.No.6-1-91, Kancharakunta, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

2. Gudeolly Saroja, Wo. Yellaiah, aged 52 years, [ /o. H.NO. 6-1-101, Kancharakunta, Hanamkonda, Warangal. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONOENTS 1 I ND 2/PETITIONERS AND 1 2 3 4 Jakkula Sadaiah and 3 others, S/o. Gattaiah, aged 43 y: Village, Kamalpur Mandal, Karimnagar District .....RESPONDENT/APPELLANT'I Sheshala Shailaja, Wo. Sarangam, aged 46 years, R/o Cole MIG-ll, Jammikunta, Karimnagar District. Thallapally Suvartha, Wo. Uppalaiah, aged 58 years, R/ Waddepally, Hanamkonda, Warangal. Jackson Educational Society, yellapur village, Hasanpa 1 District, rep. by its General Secretary Ch.Kodandarami i Reddy, aged 44 years, R/o. Yellapur village, Hasanpart r District. lrs, R/o. Uppal iESPONDENT NO.2 1.N0 2-5-95, APHB r. H,No.2-'10-79012, ry Mandal, Warangal -'ddy S/o. Raji , Mandal, Warangal ...RESPONDENTS/tI s/RESPC :SPONDENTS 3 TO NDENTS 1, 3 AND 4 lA NO: 2 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou suspend the operation of the Order and Decree in C.M.A.l, 01-07-2020 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge, War Order and Decree in LA.No.475l2015 in O S No.314t2014 < the Honble Vll Addl. Junior Civil Judge, at Warangal, pendirrr ircumstances stated I may be pleased to o.71 o'f 2015, dated rngal duly restoring n the file of court of the above C.R.P., a Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. M. RAVINDRA Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 1 & 4: SRl. RAJAGOPALI AVAN TAYI The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JIISTICE NARSING RAO NANDII{ONDA CI-L REVISION PEf,ITION NOs.1OO6 of 2O2O and 168 of2O2L COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions are arising out of tlle orders passed in CMA No. 71 of 2O15 on the hle of I Additional District Judge, Warangal, dated OL.O7.2O2O, wherein the learned Additional District Judge, Warangal have passed the orders modi$uing the order dated O4. 11.2015 passed in I.A.No.475 of 2OL4 in O.S.No.314 of 2Ol4 on the hle of VII Additional Junior Civil Judge at Warangal.

2. F or the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to as they are referred in O.S.No.314 of 2014.

3. Wherein, the appellant in the CMA No.71 of 2015, who is 2oa defendant in tlle suit has preferred the present appeal No. 71 of 2015. As both the revisiohs are preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff vide CRP No. 1OO6 of 2O2O and CRP No.168 of 2027 against respondent/defendant assailing the order passed a in CMA No. 71 of 2O15. Hence, all the revision petitions are being taken up together and may be disposed of collectively. For the sake of convenience, parties will be referred to as they are referred in O.S.No.314 of 2014. 2

4. Being aggrieved by the order date < O4.ll.2Ol5 passed in I.A.No.4l7 of 2Ol4 in O.S.No.314 of 201, , wherein the Iearned VII Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangzr have granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff, re straining the defendant from interfering with the possession anc .njunction.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the CMA l lo.7l of 2Ol5 is filed on the frle of learned I-Additional Distr < t Judge, the learned Judge has passed the following order: "that there is no dispute that originally Mr. T.Mysaiah is rt : owner of the schedule property ald tJle claim of the plaintiff ir; that their vendor, Sri. B.Venkataiah, purchased the suit schedule pr( lerty from T.Babu under simple sale deed in the month of April, 19? 1 and later sold it to Jakkula Saidaiah(appeUant) under the registerrc sale deed vide Exhibit of Pl ard P4".

6. On the other hand, it is the claim of the respondents that Ms.S.Sailaja, who is the respondent No. 1, p rchased the extent of 3O25 Sq.yds from T. Mysaiah under the :r gistered sale deeds, from whom the respondent No. 2(the prese 1t appellant) a purchased under registered agreement-cum-GPA at I later it was transferred to respondent No.4.

7. Admittedly, the property is an open val rnt site, and both parties are claiming possession over the s rit schedule 'property, and there is a serious dispute with respr:, t to the titie T 3 of the schedule property, and considering the submissions made by both the parties, the learned District Judge in CMA NO.71 of 20 15 has a,llowed the petition frled by Sri Jal<kula Saidaiah(appellant) arld directing both the parties to maintain status quo, till disposal of the main suit.

8. Having heard the counsel for both the revision petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. During the course of argument, it is submitted that both the parties are ready to proceed with the trial of the suit, and even if the status quo orders are continued, both the parties are ready ald willing to go ahead with the trial. This Court is of the opinion that, if both the paJties continue to maintain status quo as ordered by the learned Additional District Judge in respect of the possession the purpose will be served. 9- Hence,' considering the above circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error committed by the a learned I-Additional District Judge and the said revision petition is disposed of directing the trial court to proceed further in the suit and dispose the same accordingly w'ithout getting influenced with the hndings of the I-Additional District Court. Hence, for the said reasons, the CRP is disposed of directing both the pa-rties to maintain status quo, and the learned trial court is 4 directed to take steps to dispose of the said suit as e <peditiously as possible and both the parties are directed to cc,( perate with the trial court in disposal of the suit without taking any unnecessary adjournments and the trial Court is rlir rcted not to grant any unnecessary long adjournments.

10. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision l) :titions are disposed of with the above direction and there shall te no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in .l Lis revision petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A. SRET NIVASA REDDY AcESTI NT REGISTRAR E [roN oFFtcER \S I I \.i To, '1 . The I Additional District Judge Warangal. 2. The Vll Additional Junior Civit Judge at Warangal. 9 9n" CC to Sri Rajagopattavan Tayi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri. [r/. Ravinder, Advocate tOpUC] 5. Two CD Copies. PM/ABK Yx i l l 1 I HIGH COURT DATED:1 810912025 'f HE 2 2 ,]tN 2026 t o-' 't COMMON ORDER ::.,: S ^ CRP.Nos.1006 of 2020 and 168 ot 2021 a'' i7 DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS a * -t "4* S.