The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner / Petitioner / Defendant No 2

2. K. Anand, S/o Late Balaiah Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 11-10114, P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad ...Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff ...Respondent / Petitioner / Defendant No 'l lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further Proceedings in O.S.No. 2028 o'f 2013 on the file of Court of lV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at LB.Nagar, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. t- 1i I i i ', I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CIVIL REVISION PETI-I|ON NO: 124 OF 2025 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 07-1 1-2024 mad,= in I A No 82O ol 2024 in O S.No.2028 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar. Between: K. Shyam Sunderr, S/o. Late Balaiah Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.4-44217. \ew Balajinagar Extention, lileerpet, Balapur Mandal, Rangareddy Dislrict AND 1. H. Srinivas, S/o l-ate Balaiah Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 1 6-1 1 -7 7 1 I 3, [/loosarambagh, Ivlalakpet, Hyderabad ...Petitioner / Petitioner / Defendant No 2

2. K. Anand, S/o Lzrte Balaiah Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 11-1O1lA, P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad ...Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff ...Respondent / Petitioner / Defendant No 1 lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section .1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O S.No. 2028 of 2013 on the file of Court of lV Additional Senior Civil Judge. Rangareddy District at LB.Nagar, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. CIVIL REVISION PETI]-ION NO: 133 OF 2025 Petition under Atl.icle 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 07-1 1-2024 made in l A No S'19 of 2024 in O.S.No.2028 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the lV Additional Senior Civil Judge. Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar Between: K. Shyam Sunder, S/o. Late Balaiah Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.4-44217, lilew Balalinagar Extention, Meerpet, Balapur Mandal, Rangareddy District ...Petitioner / Petitioner No 2 / Defendant No 2 AND {- a ('3 '1 . H. Srinivas, S/o Late Balaiah Aged about 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 1 6 - 1 1 -7 7 1 13, Moosarambag h, Ivlalakpet, Hyderabad 2 K A1and, S/o Late Balaiah Aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 11-1011A., P and T Colony, Dilsukhnagar, Hyderabad ...Respondent / Respondent / Plaintiff ...Respondent / Petitioner / Defendant No 1 lA 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 stay all further Proceedings in O.S.No. 2028 of 2013 on the file of Court of lV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rangareddy District at LB.Nagar, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner in All the Cases Sri P Pandu Ranga Reddy '!1 Counsel for the Respondents : - - - The Court made the following Comrnon Order : THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CML REVISION PETITION Nos.12l, L24 ared. 133 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the issrLe in these Revision Petitions is one ald the same, they are being disposed of by this Common Order.

2. These Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Sonstitution of India assailing the common order dated 07.71.2A24 in LA.Nos.819 of 2024.82O o{ 2024 and B2l of 2024 in O.S.No.202B of 2013 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddg District at L.B. Nagar.

3. Heard Mr. P.Pandu Ranga Reddy, learnecl counsel for the petltloner

4. Vide tlne imp,ugned order, the Trial Court has dismissed the three petitions file d by the petitioner i.e. I.A.No.S19 of 2A24 to reopen the defendalts evid ence, I.A.No.B2O of 2024 to recall the defendalts evidence and i.A.).io.821 of 2024 to receive the documents pertaining to D2 and so also tLLe original wedding card of D2.

5. A perusal of tee documents would go to shovr that O.S.No.2O2B of 2013 originally is one which has been filed way back in the year 2O 13 and the Suit has now reached its fag end i.e. it has been fixed for _3 hnal arguments. At this stage, the aforesaid three I.As. hled by the petitioner have been dismissed leading to filing of these Revision Petitions.

6. The solitary contention r.vhich has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by reopening and recalling of the evidence and taking additional documents on record, the intention is to prove the father's name ald that the surname of the father having been differently mentioned in other documents.

7. At the outset, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Revision ,a' Petitions for the simple reason that the petitioner herein has moved the said petitions at a highly belated stage when the case itself is fixed for final arguments. Moreover, the said I.As. seems to have been filed with an intention to improve upon the case of the petitioner who has been subjected to evidence and cross examination before the Trial Court. Another reason why this Court is not inclined to entertain these Revision Petitions is, it is not that the petitioner was not aware of all these facts r.',,hen the Suit itself was filed at the first instance. The petitioner had all the time of over more than a decade available with him to establish and prove his case

8. Further, the fact which needs to be appreciated is that the stand of the petitioner cannot be defeated prima focie only on the ground of ! "] -- iFB!-F7 ' .-;i r' -- the surname of the father being wrongly reflected or being differently mentioned as long as the relationship of the father and son is being proved by the petitioner herein

9. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the instant Revision Petitions are disposed of resr:rving the right of the petitioner to argue the case on merits including the said facts, as no strong case has been made out by the petitione:' for interference at this juncturt:. lrlo costs. 10, As a sequel. reiscellaneous petitions pending if any, shail stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ( CTION OFFICER 1 2 3 The lV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar One CC to Srr P f,andu Ranga Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies VA/gh {"4 HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.121,'124 &'133 of 2025 ,r :; ;.\ t C -a\* ') 2 llA I * r) l: ,l t, =.. , l-o ^1 DISPOSING OF: ALL THE CRPS T. ?,