The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT No. 1 Smt Kaki Cfllrly?, Wo_. Krishna Aged about 50 years, Occ: Housewife, tsoth are R/o.H.No. 8-16-2, plot No.S, Beside Aware Global Hospital. Sowbhagyanagar, Bairamalquda. LB Naqar, Hvderabad_ (D2 already set exparte in -the main su-it) Heince the 2nd respondent is not necessary Party in this CRP) ...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT No. 2 lA NO: 1 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 os No.460 of 2022 on the file of principal senior civil Judge-cum-Vl Addl chief Judicial Magistrate, lbrahimpatnam, R.R.District pending disposal of the main CRP. CIVIL REVISION PETIT roN NO: 381 0F 2025 Petition under Articte 227 of the Constitutlon of lndii'r aggrieved by the Order dated 23-10-2024 in lA No. 771 ol 2023 in OS No. 460 of 2022 on the file the of Principal senior civil Judge-cum-Vl Additional chief Judicial Ivlagistrate, lbrahim patnam, Ranga Reddy District. Between Kaki Krishna, S/o. Ramchandraiah, Aged about 64 years OccBusiness, R/o.H.No. 3-{i9, Kongarakalan village lbr-himpatnam lVlandal, [1.R.Diskict AND 1 Smt Uppula Samatha, Wio. Swamy, Aged about 34 years, Occ Housewife, Anajpur village, Abdullapurmet Mandal, R R.Districl=TpONDENT/pLAINTtFF ...PETITIONER/DEFENDANT No.'t ,a- ) 2 Smt Kaki Cair:anya, Wo. Krishna Aged about 50 years, Occ: H,:usewife, Both are Rio H.No. 8-16-2, Plo[ No.5, Beside Aware Global Hospital, Sowbhagyanirgar, Bairamalguda. LB Nagar, Hyderabad. in "the main su"it) Hence the 2nd res;pondent is not (oz itn.tav i6t necessary Pa rty in this CRP) "rparte ...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT No. 2 . lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition underr 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 proc;eedings in OS No.460 of 2022 on the file of Ptincipal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Vl Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate, lbrahrmpatnatn, R.R.District pending disposal of the main CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri N. Bhasker Rao Gounsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.372 and 381 ol 2o25 COMMON ORDER : Since the issue in the instant Revisions is one and the same ald the parties also being the same, they are being disposed of by way of this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr.N. Bhasker Rao. learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Revisions {'

3. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.372 of2025 are discussed hereunder:

4. Civil Revision Petitiorr No.372 of 2025 is hled by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 23.1.O.2024 in I.A.No.772 of 2023 in Original Suit No.460 of 2022 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the impugned order').

5. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the petition filed by petitioner under Order VII Rule 11(c) of 2 PSK,J crp f7: &181_2025 Civil Proce,Cure Code, 1908 praying the Court to reject the plaint.

6. The application under Order VII Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 hled by the petitioner before the Trial Court \{,ras on the ground that : (i) firstly, t he suit being vexatious; and (i0 secondly the suit s:hedule property it-self, on an earlier round of litigation, (i.e., in O.S.No.11izS of 2008, wherein a judgment and decree was passed uide order dated 05.06.2013 in O.S.No. i75 of 2008 by the l"t Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar), as a consequence, had already been subjected to partition. That an appeal has been preferred by the 2.d respondent herein, viz., A.S.No.987 ol 2013, against the said judgment is still pending before ttris High Court.

7. A perusal of the record would go to short' thai. the 1st respondent (plaintiff) in the instant case was not a party to the earlier round of litigation (referred above). This lact itself is sufficient to uphold the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Since in the earlier suit in which the l"t respondent (plaintiff) herein was not a party, th e same I 3 PSK,J 2&)81 _)o25 ctP -)7 c.rnnot be a ground against her for the preliminary objection by way of a petition under Order VII Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

8. Further, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is one which has to be looked by way of trial and the same calnot be decided at this stage under Order VII Rule 11(c) of Civil Procedure Code, 19OB' I I g, Therefore, reserving the right of the petitioner to place all these contentions in the Written Statement ald also to iross-examine the 1"t respondent (plaintiff) herein on this preliminary objection, the Civil Revision Petition at this juncture stands dismissed. No costs. t I

10. However, this Court is of the opinion that considering that the suit schedule property has already been subjected to partition in an earlier round of litigation (referred above) arnong the family members, it is expected that the Trial Court sha1l take all necessary steps to conclude the proceedings in Origina-l Suit No.46O of 2022, pending on its file, as expeditiously as Possible. 4 PSK,J .tp )728t)81_2O25

11. Accorclingly, Civil Revision Petition No'372 o1' 2025 startds disrrissed. As a consequence, Civil Rr.:vision Petition No.3B 1 of 2025 also stands dismissed on rsimilar lines. No costs.

12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications penrling if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL STIqNI REGISTRAR A t oFFrcER i "-,o,u To, ,f'

1. The Principal Senior civil Judge-cum-Vl Additional chief Judir;ial lvlagistrate, lbrahimpatnarn. Ranga Reddy District.

2. One CC to Srr N Bhasker Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copir:s Vtlgh w HIGH COURT DATED: 0714212025 J' COMMON ORDER CRP.No.372 of 2025 AND CRP.No.381 of 2025 trE Slr 74i Z ?. rilri 2[25 a ^r . .;2 ( t5 ),, \ DISMISSING BOTH CRP'S */r