High Court · 2025

3. Smt. Sheil Prabha Devadatta, S/o. Late Dr. E.J. Devadatta, Age- 81 years, Occ- Senior Citizen, rep. by her G.P.A. Holder Vinay Stephen Devadatta, Petitioner No.1 herein.

4. Smt. Shubha Dorothy Devadatta, D/o. Late Dr. E.J. Devadatta, Age- 54 years, Occ- Private Employee, rep. by her G.P.A. Holder Vinay Stephen Devadatta, Petitioner No.1 herein. Both are R/o. # 13, 840, Dundas Street West, Mississauge,L5C 1C2, Ontario, Canada. ...Petitioners/Petitioners/PIaintiffs AND

1. Erupula Narsing Rao, S/o. Late Ellaiah, Age- 65 years, Occ-^ Retired Emiloyee, Rio. H.No. 3-12-32311, Thirumalgherry, Secunderabad, T.S.

2. Harinath Yerra, S/o. Chenchaiah, Age- 40 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No. B-3-169/60/10, lndira Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad, T.S. 3 Atluri Suresh Kumar, S/o. A. Venkateswara Rao, Age- 43 years, Occ- Pusiness, R/o. H. No. 4-5-30, Uppalapati Ramachandra Rao Street, Chitti Nagar, Vijayawada, Urban Krishna District, A.P. Venigalla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Srinivasa Rao @ Raja Rao. Age- 51 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H No. 29-106, RCM Old Colony, Kondipally, Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P 4 5 6 Ch. Shekar Babu, S/o. Ch. Satyanarayana, Age- 35 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No.9-2-29312, Langer House, Hyderabad, T.S. T. Ramesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, Age- 45 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H. No.1- 33, Keesara Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District, T.S. (The Respondents No.2 and 6 are not necessary parties to the present CRp) ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants CIVIL REVISION PEI lTloN NO: 250 OF 2022 Petition under Arlicle 227 constitution of lndia against the Docket order dated 2911012021 passed in l.A.No. 27 of 2020 in O.S. No. 919 of 2016 on the file of the court of the XIV Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L. B.Nagar Between: 1 2 Yinay Stephen Devadatta, S/o. Late Dr. E.J.Devadatta, Age. 52 years, Occ. Private. Employee, R/o. H.No.561 , Ground Floor, 17ih 6ross, 2nA Stage, lndira Nagar, E3angalore, Karnataka, lndia-560 038. S^ujay Joseph Devaqatta, Slo _Lat9 Dr. E.J.Devadatta, Age.49 years, Occ. _ Private Employee, R/o 33S, Park Dugar, Mount poonimalled High Road, Ramapuram, Ohennar - 600 089. 3. Smt. Shell Prabha Devadafta, S/o. Occ. Senior Citizen. rep. by her G Petitioner No '1 herein Smt Shubha Dorothy Devadatta, D/o. Late Dr. E.J. Devadatta, Age. 54 years, Occ- Private Fmployee, rep. by her G.p.A. Holder Vinay Slephe"n DevalJatta, Petitioner No.'l herein Late Dr. E.J. Devadatta. Age. Bl years, P.A Holder Vrnay Stephein Devadatta, 4 Both are R/o. 13 Canada. 840, Dundas Street West, Mississauge, L5C iC2, Ontario, ...Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs AND 1 2 Erupula Narsing Rao, S/o. Late Ellaiah, Age.65 years, Occ. Retired Employee, R/o. H No. 3-12-323t1 , Thirumilgnerry, Secunderabad, 1.S far!1a!h Yerra, S/o. Chenchaiah, Age. 40 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. g_ 3-169/60/10, lndira Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad, T S. a I

3. Atluri Suresh Kumar, S/o. A. Venkateswara Rao, Age.43 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.4-5-30, Uppalapati Ramachandra Rao Street, Chitti Nagar, Vijayawada, Urban Krishna District, A.P.

4. Venigalla Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Srinivasa Rao or Raja Rao, Age. 51 years, Occ Business, R/o. H. No. 29-106, RCM Old Colony, Kondapally, Vijayawada, Krishna District, A.P.

5. Ch. Shekar Babu, S/o. Ch. Satyanarayana, Age. 35 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.9-2-293l2, Langer House, Hyderabad, T.S.

6. T. Ramesh, S/o. Late Yellaiah, Age.45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.'1- 33, Keesara Village and Mandal, Rangareddy District, T.S. (Respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to the present CRP.) ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 in O.S. No. 919 o'f 2016 on the file of XIV Additional District Judge. Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar until the drsposal of this Civil Revision Petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 pass express speaking orders extending stay passed in l.A. No. 1 of 2022 in CRP No. 250 of 2022, dated 17-03-2022 until the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition or such other order or orders which this Honble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioners in both cases : Sri. Nageswara Rao Repakula Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 in both cases : Sri S.M. Saifullah The Court made the following: THE HONOIIR{BLE Dr. JUSTICE G.RADHA IIANI CIVIL RE'VISION PETITION N os.164 & 250 of2Q22 I COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.l64 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners - plaintifls aggrieved by the order dated29.10.202l passed in I.A.No.28 of 2020 in O.S.No.919 of 2016 by the leamed XIV Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. C.R.P.No.250 of 2022 is filed by the petitioners - plaintifls aggrieved by the orderdated 29.10.2021 passed in I.A.No.27 of 2020 in O.S.No.919 of 2016 by the leamed XIV Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. Heard the leamed counsel for the petitioners.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that I.A.No.27 of 2020 was filed by the petitioners - plaintiffs I to 4 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 ofCPC praying the Court to condone the delay of 153 days in filing the restoration petition to set aside the dismissal order dated

08.07.2019 passed against the respondents / defendants 1,3 and 4. I.A.No.28 of 2020 was filed by the petitioners - plaintiffs I to 4 under Order IX Rule 2 read with Section 151 of CPC to restore the suit to its file by setting aside the orders \ \ 2 Dr.G RR, J crp_164 & 250)022 passed on 08.07.2019 against the respondents / defendants 1, 3 and 4. The trial court failed to see the docket order of the previous date i.e. on 25.06.2019, which would show that the petitioners paid the process fee and ordered to issue lresh summons to defendants l, 3 and 4. Without verifoing the process and docket order of previous date, in the absence of the petitioners' counsel, who could not attend the court due to being engaged in the High Court, dismissed the suit against the respondents - defendants l, 3 and 4.

5. Perused the record.

6. As the docket order dated 25.06.2019 would disclose that the process fee was paid by the petitioners - plaintiffs I to 4 for issuing summons to defendants 1,3 and 4, but however, the trial court vide docket order dated 08.07.2019 recorded that process fee was not paid by the plaintiffs for issuance ofsut nons to the defendants 1, 3 and 4 and dismissed the suit against defendants l, 3 and 4, which prima facre is irregular, it is considered fit to set aside the said order dismissing the suit against the respondents - defendants l, 3 and 4.

7. It was also further recorded in the impugned docket order dated

29.10.2021 that the petitioners' counsel bluntly refused to pay the process fee for issuance of notice to respondent No.5

8. However, the leamed counsel for the petitioners - plaintiffs submitted that the trial court pressd the petitkfners to pay the process fee for the 3 Dr.G RR, J crp_I64 & 250 2022 respondent - defendant No.5 arbitrarily and illegally. The respondent No.5 was represented by a counsel and also filed his w-ritten statement in o.S.No.919 of 2016 on 07.03.2017, es such no fresh process need to be taken for issuing l sumrnons / notice to respondent No.5. Leamed counsel for the petitioners had also filed documents showing that respondent No.5 - defendant No.5 was represented by a counsel by name Ms.Anitha Mesa and that a written statement was also filed by del'endant No.5 on 07.03.2017. g. As the trial court dismissed the suit against the respondents 1, 3 and 4 as well as respondent No.5 - defendant No.5 without proper perusal of the docket orders. vakalat and the written statement filed by defendant No.5, which were already on record, it is considered fit to allow the CRPs by setting aside the docket order dated 29.10.2021 passed in I.A.Nos.27 and 28 of 2020 irt O.S.No.9l9 of 2016 by the leamed XIV Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar.

10. In the result, C.R.P.Nos.164 and 250 are allowed setting aside the docket orders dated 29.10.2021 passed in I.A.Nos.27 and28 of 2020 in O.S.No.9l9 of 2016 by the learned XIV Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar and the trial court is directed to issue surunons to deiendans l, 3 and 4. No ordcr as to costs. I \ 4 Dr.GRR, J crp_164 & 250 2022 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in these petitions, if any, shalI stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A. SRINIVASA REDDY T REGISTRAR AS SECTION OFFICER

1. The XIV Additional District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar. 2. One CC to Sri. Nageswara Rao Repakula, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri S.M. Saifullah, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies @j DL I HIGH COURT l DATED:05102t2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.164 & 250 ot 2022 ?7iltAf,M a -ll * .of i. I ALLOWING THE C.R.Ps 06 04{-