The High Court · 2025

Petition under Rule 32 of c.R.P.c praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased_ to p"i*it tn" petitioner No.i herein to file the present CRP and appear on behalf of the Petitioners 2 and 4 to 12. IA NO: 2 OF 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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuance to th_e judgment and decree dated \Z-Ol-ZOZ+ passed in O.S.No. 19 of 2022, on the file of the Seni.r Civil Judge, Nagarkurnkool, penCing disposal of the main C.R.P. and pass Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V' Yadu Kri'shna Sainath The Court made the following: ORDER .irl .'\ THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.178 OF 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Articl c 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners appellants aggrieved by the docket order, dated 19.11.2024, in I.A.No.281 of 2024 in I.A.No.84 of 2024 in A.S.No.08 of 2024 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal.

2. Heard Mr.Palle Srinivasa Reddy, lcarned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.Yadu Krishna Sainath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. perused the record.

3. The petitioners and the respondents herein filed O.S.Nos. 18 and 19 of 2022 rcspectively on the filc of learned Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, for recovcry of possession of suit schedule properties. Thc lezrrncd Se nior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, uide common Judgment, dated 12.01.2024, dismissed the suit filed by the petitioncrs herein i.e., O.S.No.1B of 2022 and decreed thc suit with costs i.e., O.S.No.19 of 2022 filed by the respondents hcrein declaring 1* 2 NNR,.I crp r78 2025 that they are owncrs of the-"suit schedule' prope rties and directing p,:titioncr Nos.2 to 12 herein to vacate the suit schedulc propertics and deliver vacant possession of the same to the respondenLs '"r,ithin a period of three (li) months, failing which thc respondents are at liberty to proceed r'"'it h further in accordar ce with law.

4. Aggrieved by decreeing the suit in O.S No.19 of 2022, the cctitioners filed appeal in A.S.Nc,.B ol 2021 and aggrieved by dismissing the suit in O'S.No.78 of '2.022, th,e petitioners filcd appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2024 before the learned Principal District Judge at Jogulamba Gadrvai and both the appeals arr3 pcnding. Pending adjudication ol saic appeals, the petition ers-appeliants filed I.A,No.84 of the 2024 in appeal A.S.No.8 ol' '2024, seeking stay of execution oI judgment and decree, da.ted 12.01.2024 in O.S.No.19 of 2022 passed by learned Se nior Civil .Iudge, Nagarkurnool, till disposal of the said appeal. The learned Principal District Judge, J ogulamba Gadwal, uide its order 19.04.2024 grantcrl interiin stay of execution of thc judgment and decree passed in O.lS.No.19 of 2022 tlll 03.06.2024 with a condition theLt the petitioners shall give an undertaking for early disposal of the appeal. / I I I i I I t :() 3 N NII,J ctp t18:)O25 Thereafter the stay was extended trgm time to time and it was extended tlll 06.O8.2024. Subsequently, the petitioners filed I.A.No.2B I of 2O24 for extension of interim stay gralted in I.A.No.84 of 2024. But, the learned Principal District Judge passed docket order dated 1g.11.2024 simply adjourned the matter without extending the interim order ald directed the office to call for the application along with the appeal. Aggrieved by the said docket order, the present civil revision case has been filed by the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners- appellants vehemently contended that the petitioners herein have made an application in I.A.No.28l of 2024 for extension of interim orders. But, the learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal, without passing any orders on the said application, has adjourned the said application though initially on 19 .O4.2O24, the learned Judge has granted interim order, after hearing both the counsei and after considering the objections and the Memo. He further submitted that on the consent given by learned cor.rnsel for respondents by '"t ay of memo that the respondents have no objection for granting stay subject to condition that the I 4 NNR.J crp 178 202-i petitioners appellanls thcrein -shall get :eady with the appeals, thc learned Judge has granted limited st,ry to the petitioners u'hich r,t,as being cxtended from time tc, time till

06.O8.2024 . Hc further submitted that the present application ir-r I.A.No.281 of 2024 was filed seeking extension of interim order.s. But, the learned Judge did not choose to pass any orders on the said application. Lezrrned counsel for the responclents has opposed the very revision petition on the ground that the petitioners arc dragging the mattcr since a decade. But, during pcndcncy of the suits the petitioners are dragging thc procccdings on one pretext or other by hling the application,s before the trial Court. It is further contended by the learned r:ounsel for the petitioners that there arr: series of orders werc passcd rn the applications, against which C.R.Ps were prcferrcd before this Court and in some instances against some orders of this Court, the matters were carried to Honble Sup:'eme Court.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contcnded that the petitioners are more concerned about obtaining of stay, but did not ,lhoose to proceed i.r,i1.h the appeal. Learned counsel also brought to the ,// ,/, 5 NNR,J crp I7E-2025 notice of this Court about the ,qlgpr passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P.Nos.274 and 292 of 2024, dated 30.O9.2024 wherein this Court directcd the lcarned Principal District Judge to dispose of the both the appeals within three (3) months from the date of the said order. He further contended that in spite of directions of this Court, the petitioners are not cooperating for disposal of the appeals. Due to conduct of the petitioners, even though interim stay was granted by the trial Court with the consent of the respondents, thc petitioners are not cooperating for disposal of the appeals. In spite of icverage expressed by learned counsel for the respondents in the trial Court, the petitioners did not get ready with the appeals and stick on to the extent inlerim orders passed by the learned Principal District Judge.

7. Having regard to the submissions ma.de by learned counsel on eithcr side, the learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal ought to havc passed some orders on the extension application without keep pending the same as the said application is filed only for extension of Interim orders for a further period. Mere keeping the applications pending \ 6 -.,:;: ,-.1 .- NNR,J rrp 178 2025 would lead tr., such situation wllure the petitioners Lrave to approach this Oourt seeking to pass orders'

8. l'herefore, this Court, without going in to the merits of the case as both counsel have requested this Court toissueadirc:ctiontothelearnedPrincipalDistrictJudge, Jogulamba Cadwal, to clispose of the appeal ri'ithin t.he time bound. Taking lnto consideration the submissions made by both thc counsel and as the petitioners are ready anc, willing to cooperate for disposal of thc appeal i'e', A'Si'No 08 of 2024 this Court deems it appropriate to dircct both the parties' especially, thc pctitioners to conclude the arguments which are alrcady n-rade by them in-part before the learned I'rincipal District Judgic on or before 28 03 '2025 and ii the petitioners fails to sub m it their arguments on or before 28 'O3 '2025 ' learned Princrpal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadu'al shall treat that tlrt: pctitioners havc no further argumerlts and thereafter, tl-re learned Principal District Judge shall proceed with for further hearing of thc respondents' Till dir;posal of appeal in A.S.No.0B of 2024, interim stay granted by the trial Court in the said appeal shall continue' 7 NNR,J c.P t78 2025

9. With the above observations thc Civil Re vision Petitions is disposed of There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand I closed. \ To, Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER

1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal 2. One CC to IVlr. Palle Srinivasa Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri V. Yadu Krishna Sainath, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 t ORDER CRP.No.178 of 2025 ( a: v1 STAT€ oA 1u trr[$, ?$15 'o,.\-'-:- -, \> :' z c) .I, + DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION o \0r!