The High Court · 2025

17. Smt. Siddam Household, Hanamkonde, yalaxmi 14 to 1 os. rangal District. , Wo. Late Siddam Mahender, Occ: 7 are R/o. H. No.2-9-1 89/2, Vikas Nagar,

18. Chowdavaram Linga Murthy, S/o. Late Suryakantham, Oce: Advocate, R/o. Dardepally vi lage of Palakurthy Mandal, Warangal District.

19. Chowdavaram Srinivas, S/o. Late Suryakantham, Occ: Branch Post Master, R/o. Dardepally village of Palakurthy Mandal, Warangal District. Respondents/Respondents/Defenda nts (RR 1 to 19 ar-e not necessary parties to this petition)

20. Guguloth .Sajjan, S/o, Harikishan, Agriculturist, R/o. Dubba Thanda, H/o. Dardepally (V), Palakurthy (M), Warangal District .. Respondents/ Respondents/Proposed Defendants CIVIL REVlSlrf,N PET ON NO: 575 OF 2018 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 03-11-2017 Passed in l.A. No.80 o1 2016 in O.S. No.11 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Warangal at Jangaon District. Between:

1. Gangu ltishna Murthy, @. Radha. Krishna Murthy, S/o. Nagarajaiah, Aged 40 years, Occ. Agriculturist,Warangal

2. Gangu Pattabhi Ramamurthy Nagarajaiah, Aged 52 years, and (M), Warangal District. @ Pattabhi Ramaiah @ Pattabhi Ramulu, S/o. Occ. Agriculturist, Both are Rl/o. Palakurthy (V) ... Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND '1. Chowdavaram Suryakantham (died), Wo.Late Linga Murthy, aged about-72 years,Occ-Agriculture, Warangal

2. Siddam China Rajaiah, S/o. Late Somaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Agriculturist, (Died per LRs Defendants Nos.10 to r3)-

3. Koduru Soma Reddy, S/o. Late Narayan Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

4. Emmadi Somanarsaiah, S/o. Venkataiah, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculturist

5. Koduru Damoder Reddy, S/o. Sudershan Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

6. Koduru Ramchandra Reddy, S/o. Sudershan Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Agriculturist,

7. Smt. Palle Upendra, Wo. Late Venkataiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Household, All are R/o. Dardepally Village, Palakurthy Mandal, Waranga Oistrict.

8. Shamala Yakaiah, S/o. Somaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Labour, 9. Md. Saleem, S/o. Janimiya, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Businessman, '10. Siddam Mahender, S/o. Late Siddam China Rajaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Employee of Zilla Parishad, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. (Died per LRs, defendant nos.13 to 17) I 'l . Siddam Occ. Wara nder, S/o. Late Siddam Ch , R/o. Dardepally istrict. ina Rajaiah, Aged about 44 years, village of Palakurthy Mandal,

12.Siddam Narender, S/o. Late Siddam China Rajaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Police Constable, Mamnoor Camp, Warangal District.

13. Smt. Siddam Kousalya, W/o. Late Siddam China Rajaiah, Aled about 70 years, Occ. Household, R/o Dardepally village of Palakurthy Mandal, Warangal District.

14.Siddam Bharath Kumar, S/o. Late Siddam Mahender, Aged about 21 years, Occ. Student,

15.Siddam Sharath Kumar, S/o. Late Siddam Mahender, Aged about 19 years, occ. Student,

16.Siddam Pravalika, D/o. Late Siddam Mahender, Aged about 23 years, Occ. Student,

17.Smt. Siddam Rajani @ Rajyalaxmi, Wo. Late Siddam Mahender, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Household, Respondents Nos.14 to l7 are R/o. H.No.t9- '189/2, Vikas Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal Dist-rict. '18. Chorrydavaram Linga Murthy, S/o. Late Suryakantham, Aged about 45 years, occ. Advocate, R/o. Dardepally village of Palakurthy Mandal, Warangal Diskict. '19. Cholvdavaram.Srinivas, S/o. Late Suryakantham, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Branch Post Master, R/o Dardepally village of Palakurthy Mandal, Warangal Distr ct.

20.Smt. Koduru Vasumathi, Wo. Late Soma Reddy, Aged about 59 years, occ. Agriculturist, Rl/o. Dardepally village, Palakurthy mandal, Warangal District.

21. Koduru Gopal Reddy @ Venugopal Reddy, S/0. Late Soma Reddy, Aged about 40 years, occ. Agriculturist, R/o Dardepally Village, Palakurthy Mandal, Warengal District.

22.Koduru Ranga Reddy, S/o. Late Soma Reddy, Aged about 36 years, occ. Agriculturist, R/o Dardepally Village, Palakurthy Mandal, Warangal District. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants (RR'1 to 19 are not necessary parties to this petition)

23. Smt. Jngurala Sabifha, Wo. Ravinder,D/o. Siddam Rajaiah, Aged about 43 years, occ. Household, R/o. H.No.2-9-189, Vikas Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

24. Smt. r\kuthota Anitha, Wo. Ramulu, D/o. Siddam Rajaiah, Aged about 40 years occ. Household, FJo. H.No.3-6, Ramannagudem, Nellikuduru Mandal, Warangal District.

25. Smt. Uladlapally Sunitha, W/o. Radha. Krishna, D/o. Siddam Rajaiah, Aged about 34 years, occ.Household, R/o. Nadigonda village, Raghunathapally (M), Warangal District.

26.Smt. (;onela Rajeshwari, Wo. Murali, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Coolie, R/o. Palakurthy village and Mandal, Warangal District.

27. Smt. F'asula Kanaka Durga, Wo. Ramchander, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Coolie, R/o. Palakurthy village and Mandal, Warangal District. ...Respondents/Respondents/Proposed Defendants CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 590 OF 201E Petitic,n under AJticle 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 03-11-2017 Passed in l.A. No.57 of 2015 in O.S. No.11 of 2015 onthefile of the Court of the V Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Warangal at Jangaon Dislrict. Between:

1. Gangu Krishna Murthyn @ Radha Krishan Murthy, S/o. Nagarajaiah, Palakurthy Village and Mandal, Warangal

2. Qangu Paftabhi Ramamurthy @ Pattabhi Ramaiah, S/o. Nagarajaiah, Palakurthy Village and Mandal, Warangal ... Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs D 1. Chowdavaram Suryakantham, W/o. Late Linga Murthy, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Dardepally Village, Palakurthy Mandal, Wamgal oistrict -

2. S.iddam China Rajaiah, S/o.Late Somaiah, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Dardepally Village^, Palakurthy Mandat, Warngat District ( Died- per LRs befendants ' Nos. t 0 to 13)

3. Koduru Soma Reddy, S/O. Late Narayana Reddy, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Dardepally Village, Palakurthy Mandai, Warngal'District

4. Emmadi Somanarsaiah, S/o.V€nkataiah, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Dardepally Village, Palakurthy Mandat, Warngat District

5. Koduru Dam-oder Reddy, S/o.Sudershan Reddy, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Dardepally Village, Palakurthy Mandal, Warngdl District

6. Koduru Ramchandra Reddy, S/o.Sudershan Reddy, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Dardepally Village, Palakurihy Mandat, Warngat District

7. Smt.Palle Upendra,.Wo Late Venkataiah, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o. Dardepally Village, Palakurthy Mandal, Warngal District 8. Shamala yakaiah, S/o.Somaiah, Occ: Labour 9. Md.Saleem, S/o.Janimiya, Occ: Businessman

10. Siddam !vlgl.re$q,_S/o Late Siddam China Rajaiah, Occ: Emptoyee of Ziila parishad, R/o.Zilla Parishad, hanamkonds, Waiangal District(bied per LRs, defendant Nos.13 to 17)

11. Siddam !uge..n{e..[, S/o.tile Siddam China Rajaiah, Occ: Legal practioner, R/o.Dardepally Village of Palakurthy Mandal, ' '12. Siddam Narendar, S/o.late Siddam China Rajaiah, Occ: police Consitable, Ryo.Mamnoor Camp, Warangal District

13.Smt. Siddam Kousalya, Wo.late Siddam China Rajaiah, Occ: Househod, R/o.Dardepally Village of Palakurthy Mandat,

14.9iddam. Bharath Kumar, S/o. Late Siddam Mahender, Occ: Student, R/o.Vikas Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warngal District 1 5. 9iddam_ Sharath Kumar, S/o. Late Siddam Mahendar R/o.Vikas Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warngal District

16.giddam_ Pravalika, D/o.Late Siddam Mahender, Occ: Student, R/o.Vikas Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warngal District

17.Smt. Siddam Rajani @Rajataxmi, W/o.Laate Siddam Mahender, Occ: Household, R/o.Vikas Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warngal District

18. Chowdavaram Linga Murthy, S/o.Late Suryakantham, Occ: Advocate, R/o.Dardepally Village of Palakurthy mand-at, Warangal District

19. Cho-wdavaram Srinivas, S/o.Late Suryakantham, Occ: Branch pbst master, r/o.Dardepally Village of Palakurthy Mandat, Wainagal District ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants (RR 1 to 19 are not necessary parties to this petition)

20. Jalal;am Somaiah, S/o.Somanarsaiah, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Dardepally Villa'le of Palakurthy mandal, Warangal District

21. Jalagam Somanarsaiah, S/o.Chinna Somaiah, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.l)ardepally Village of Palakurthy mandal, Warangal District

22. Jalagam Anjaiah, S/o.Ivlallaiah, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Dardepally Village of Palal<urthy mandal, Warangal District

23. Shiripati Yellaiah., S/o.Saimallu, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o.Dardepally Village of Palakurthy mandal, Warangal District ...Respondents/Respondents/Proposed Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2018 Petiticn under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidervit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all l'urther proceedings in O.S. No .11 ot 2015 on the fite of V Additional District judge (FTC), Warangal at Jangon. Counsel for the Petitionerc in all CRPs :SRl R K CHITTA Counsel for the Respondents in all CRPs : _ _ _ The Court made the following: GOMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in these civil Revision Petitions are arising out of the same original suit No.11 of 2oL5, between the same parties, th.y are being heard together and disposed of by way of this conrmon order.

2. The c.R.P.Nos.559, szs and sgo of 2o1g are frled against trre orders dated 03.1 L.2oLT in I.A.Nos.6g, go and 57 of 2015 respectively in o.S.No.11 of 20ls passed by the learned v Additionat District Judge (FTC), warangal at Jangaon.

3. Heard Mr.R.K.chitta, learned counsel for petitioners/plaintiffs. Inspite of service of notice none appeared for the respondents, as such respond.ents are set ex-parte. Perused the record. 2 XIw,J cR.P-Nos.s59t STs' 5gO ol2O'a 4 Judge (mC), Warangal at Jangaon' The brief facts of the case are that the Petitioners herern frled O. S.No' 1 I of 2015 on the file of V Additional District seeking recovery of possess ton of the suit property' lt is stated that I'A'No'68 of 2ol5isfiledSeekingtoimplead.respond'entNo.2o, I.A.No.ilO of 2015 is frled seeking to implead respondent Nos.23 to 27 atrd l'A'No'57 of 2015 is filed seeking to impleal respondent Nos'20 to 23 respectively in O'S'No'11 of 2015 to avoid multiplicity of litigation arrd not to create third p'arty interest over the suit property and the sarne was dismissedbythelearnedJudge,onthegroundthatthe Suit property is in Sy'No'Saa/B/ 1 and the respective resporrdents have sold the land in Sy'No'544/ 1 and it is not the ca se of the petitioners that the respective respondents are in possession of the Suit property' Assailing the same' the resPective C'R'Ps' l,earnerl counsel for the D. petitioners / Plaintiffs contended that the trial Court while passing the impugned 3 ivt\lR J CA.P.IVos.559, 575, 59O oJ 2Ola order failed to consider the grounds that were raised in the affidavits filed in support of I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 to re-open the Suit for further evidence.

6. He further contended that the trial Court without recording proper reasons, dismissed I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 and failed to note that, the implead respondent No.2O, respondent Nos.23 to 27 and respondent Nos.20 to 2g respectively purchased the property from defendant No.ll therein. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon, while entertaining the injunction application, has directed the parties to the suit not to alienate the suit schedule properties to the third parties titl the disposal of the Suit. However, with a malafrde intention to create third party interest in the present Suit and to create multiplicity of litigation and to cause loss to the petitioners the defendant No.11 has executed the sale deeds in the narne of implead respondents, as such they are necessary parties, as they have stepped into the shoe of the defendants. Therefore, the proposed respondents/defendants are very much necessary parties to the suit for proper adjudication of the suit, 4 ,UIW,J C.R.P.rvos.559, 575, 59O of,2Ola I! hence, the orders impugned are liable to be set-aside and sought permiss.ron to implead respondent No.2O to 27 in the Suit and permit the petitioners to amend consequential amendments in the plaint.

7. Lezrrned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the trial Court, while dismissing the I.A.Nos.68, 8O and 57 of 2015, failed to record proper reasons and the frnding of the trial Court at Para-3 is as follows: "...it is not the case of the plaintiffs tha\ res;pondent No.20, respondent Nos.23 to 27 and res:pondent Nos.2O to 23 respectiuelg are in por;sessron of ttrc suit propertA". The case of the petitioners is that, with a malafrde intention, to cause loss to the petitioners, the defendant No.ll has created third parly interest in the present suit, to create multiplicity of litigation, executed sale deeds in favour of the proposed respondent Nos.20 to 27.

8. He turther contended that the triat Court erred in not considering the provisions under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) r/w. Section llil of c.P.c. and failed to consider the aspect that, 5 J$nJ c'R-P.Abs.559, 575, 59O ol2O78 if the order under revision is allowed, no prejudice will be caused to the other side if the Suit is decide on merits after impleading respondent No.20, respondent Nos.23 to 2Z and respondent Nos.2o to 23 in the respective Interlocutory Applications.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that the trial court erred in giving a finding that the suit property is in Sy.No.544-Bl1 and respondent No.20, respondent Nos.23 to 27 and respondent Nos.2O to 23 respectively were sold the land in Sy.No.544 / 1 and it is not shown that, the property purchased by the respective respondents forms part and parcel of the Suit schedule propert5r.

10. Learned counsel further contended that the trial Court erred in dismissing the I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2015 even though, the implead respondent Nos.20, 23 to 27 and 20 to 23 did not enter appearance inspite of service of notice on them before this Court. -,1 .l 6 JI,I\R,J C.R.P.IVoS.559, S7S, SgO oJ 2lta

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision rendered by the High court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in betwe en varqnq,si Madhaaa Rco us Naragansetti gouind. Rajulut, wherein it was hetd that 5' The pincipar Junior ciu, Jud.ge di"smissed. ttw petition mainrg on two grounds. Firstlg, inspite of tle knoutled.ge'of pend.encg of the suit, the petitioner,s father purchased. the-propeng in ,996 Ltna'er a registered. sare deed. uhich is sard to haue been executed. on !2-9-1997 but the petitioner f,ed *e present petition afier a tong laps'e in lggg and- rrcnce the petition utos dismrrssed as hauing been ftled belated.lg. The othlr ground mentioned. is that *E petilioner had rat jlled. ang petitioi for ansequential amend.ment a.s atntemplated und.er Rule 2g of CRp. -L',eharf 1O. ,4s stated aboue, tn this case, there ts a specific auerment of the petitioner herein that *e praintiff and th.e o1 defendants in the suit coruded to rnrm his interest. under these ctrcum,stances, the petitioner must be d.eemed. to be a nece.ssary partA. Failure to imptead him would lead to multiplicity of titigation. (Jnder tiese circamstances, to auoid multi.oticitg o/ surfs and to giue ft.nalitg to the lttiglation, the prese'nce of the petitioner as a party to the suif is i.u""ory. TLrc l.arned Junior ciu, Jud.g" n,,i not euen referred. to this allegcttion in the afftdauit of ,rc petitioner as to corusion between the petitioner and. the d.efendant.

11. Uttder the ciranmstances, the d.ismtssal of tle petition on the gr'cund tfnt it was filed belatedlg and for not asking for consequential amendment is not proper. - '

12. The otlrcr ground for refusing or rejecting tLrc petition is techni<nl tn nature, namelg, non_compliance of iule 2g of cRP' Ir is doubtfur whether this rure appties to petitions for impleading. At any rate, it cannot be a ground. for rejecttng I 1s99 93) (Hc) 7 lvIrR J GA.P.l\bs.559, 575, 59O ol2078 this petition. L2. He further relied upon the decision rendered by this Court in C.R.P.No.1634 of 2022, wherein permission was granted to the petitioners therein to implead the respondents therein, who purchased the Suit schedule property, pendente tite. Therefore, he prays to set-aside the Order dated 03.11.2017 in I.A.Nos.68, 80 and 57 of 2OLS in O.S. No.1L.of 2015 passed by the learned V Addl. District Judge (FTC), Warangal at Jangaon District.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has posed a question, whether a relief sought under Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice is applicable to the present revisions, which reads as follows: Rule 28 of the Ciuit Rules of Practtce refers to the mandatory procedure for filing applications tluat seek amendments to a legal doanment, such as a plaint. Under this rule, an application must not onlg request ttrc amendment but also clearlg indicate uthere the consequential c?nnges are to be made in the original plaint, and the applicant must complg with all applicable legal procedures. If he applicnnt faits to do so, the court utill likelg dbmiss tle petition. for which, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in an application under Order 1 Rule 1O of CPC the mentioning 8 lllw'J of Rule 128 and the subsequential amendment can be made by way of arr oral request, which is permissible as per the proviso of Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice.

14. It is also pointed out that the same is curable defect, though the word 'shall" is mentioned in the provision but he contended that in view of the said provision in the Proviso, the Rule becr:mes directory and not mandatory, where it is provided under Pr,rviso, that request can be made with the permission of the Courl. This shows that very rule itself is not mandatory and it is direc,tory and even he also relied upon the judgment of this Court in Varanasi Madhann Roto's case cited supra.

15. Considering the above decision and the Proviso, this Court is also of the opinion that though the Rule 28 is mentioned, but it is the t,ounden duty of the petitioner to see that what are the conseque.etial amendments that have to be made and placed before thr: trial Court, though that not mentioning of Rule 28 with the ztpplication may not be fatal to the present application, tJlis Cou.rt has to consider the submission upon the subseque:rtial amendment. Even at the later point of time, as ./ a 9 M{R,J c.R.P.lbs.559, 575. S9O oJ 2078 provided under Proviso, may also seek for amendment of the pleadings.

16. The other question, which falls for consideration before this court is whether the petitioner is entitled to implead the proposed respondents as defendants' Thelearned'counselforthepetitionerhassubmittedthat aStheproposedrespondententered.intotheshoeofthe d.efendant by purchasing Suit schedule property and he also contend.ed that the proposed respondents being the subsequent purchaserduringthepend'encyofthepetitionthattooafter allowing the injunction application by the learned Senior civil Judge,Jangaon,inspiteofd'irectingthepartiesnottoalienate the Suit ProPertY- :t7. Admittedly there is no denial that the said property was soldtotheproposed'respondents/defendantsandhealso further relied upon the judgment of this court and the learned coordinate bench of this court in c.R.P.No.1634 0f 2022, while d.iscussing the law laid down by the Hon'ble supreme court and -F I t t I I I I I It I I I I ! t t i 1, t i ?i I I t I $ t II I I II T { * I I t It It I II I* I I It I T T 't I ,l ,! i l ! I.t i i 10 JVIW,J c'R.P.I\bs.ss% 575, sgo oJ2ora also by various High courts including the High court of Judicature at Hyderabad, wherein, it was held that purchasers of the Suit property, pendente lite, are necessary parties and they han'e to be impleaded to decide the ljs.

18. It is a settled law that a purchaser of the suit property during the pendency of t.Le suit is a necessary party and his impleadrnent should be allowed. The said principle was arso laid down by the Delhi High court in sh.Ramnik Gupta us Jlrts.sneh Latha Gapthaz.

19. Re:ierring to the principle laid down by Honble Apex court in vidur rmpex and Tto,ders htt. Ltd,.and. others u. Tosh Apartments Ptt. Ltd.3, Thomson press (rnd.ia) Ltd,., a. No,nak iBuilders & rnaestors p. Ltd., & othersa and, Rikhu Dea, ch.elq Bawa Harjug Dass us som Dass (Deceased) Througlr .trzs chela shiamdo,sss, and in yed.dulo. satheesl. Kumar Reddg and others a. sankireddg Bakkireddg 3 AIR 2072 SC 2925 4 2013(5) SCC s97 s 1976 (1r SCC lOS 11 .IINR,J c.R.P..Mos.559, 575, 59O of zola Aseettad Kumqr Reddg and others6, High court of Judicature at Hyderabad held that pendete lite purchaser is necessary parties and he has to be impleaded.

20. In view of the aforesaid legal position, coming to the facts on hand, it is not in dispute that proposed respondents have purchased the suit schedule propert5r, pend.ente tite. The said facts are not disputed by the proposed respondents. Just because the cause of action arose recently, and that petitioners did not seek consequential relief under Rule 2g of civil Rules of Practice and the ground that their presence is not necessary in the Suit and the court below cannot dismiss the application filed by the petitioners seeking impleadment of necessarJr parties, who purchased' part of the subject property, pendente lite. The said finding of the court below in the impugned order is not on the basis of actual facts and legal position. 6 2OL6 (5) ALT 36 t2 JUIR,J CR.P.!\tot.559, 575, 59O oJzOtA 2L. As stated supra and also in view of the principle laid de',vp irr the aforesaid judgments, purchasers of the suit propert:/, pendete lite, are necessary parties and they have to be impleaded to decide the lis' Therefore, viewed from any angle pt:rmission shall be granted to the petitioners to implead respective proposed respondents as necessary parties to the Suit. Ttrerefore, tJre impugned Orders dated 03'11'2017 in I.A.Nos.68, 8O and 57 of 2Ol5 respectively in O'S'No'11 of 2015 passed by the learned V Additional District Judge (FTC), lVarangal at Jangaon is not on correct facts and legal position and is liable to be set-aside and accordingly set- aside.

22. With the above observation; these Civil Revision Petition:; are allowed. Consequently, the order passed by the learned trial Court in I.A-Nos.68, 8O and 57 of 2015 dated O3.LL.2Ol7 are set-aside and consequently, I'A'Nos'68' 80 .and. 57 of 2015 respectively in O'S'No'11 of 2015 are allowed. The petitioners herein are permitted to implead : t I d I 13 raqJ CR.P-^toa559, 575, 59O.f ZOta respondent No.2O in I.A.No.6g of 2015, respondent Nos.23 to 27 in I.A.No.8O of 2015 and respondent Nos.2O to 23 in I.A.No.S7 of 2015 as respective defendants in O.S.No. 11 of 2015. There shall be no order as to costs. Notg:, Though the impugned order was passed by the learned V Additional District Judge (FTC) Warangal, now it is designrlted as Principal District & Sessions Judge Jangaon for the purpose of codrmunication. 23, As stated above, the Suit is of the year 2OLS, the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge Jangaon, is directed to dispose of the aforesaid Suit, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The V Additional District Judge(Fast Track Court), Warangal at Jangaon District

2. One CC to SRI R K CHITTA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies _ &kz ADK/PSL HIGH GOURT DATED j5t10t2025 i ) Tnc'.i c,-) * 2 4 FIB 2t]26 )t' COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.SSg, StS & 590 of 2O1g ALLOWING ALL THE CRPs WITHOUT COSTS Jt<s ro/zlz6