The High Court · 2025

1. Sri. Y- Somabrahmam, S/o Late Y. Satyanarayan, R/o Perugudem (v), Denduluru (m), West Godawari Dist, Now residing at Plot No. 593/4, Road No.31, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033. Telagana.

2. Smt. Y.Manoharam, D/o Y. Somabrahmam R/o Perugudem (v), Denduluru (m), West Godawari Dist, Now residing at Plot No. 593/4, Road No.31, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033. Telagana.

3. Smt. Nityam Jayalakshmi, D/o Y. Somabrahmam R/o Perugudem (v), Denduluru (m)West Godawari Dist, Andhra Pradesh. Now residing at Plot No. 593/4, Road No.31, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad-500033. State of Telagana. Mobile.8143399199

4. Nekkanti Achutha Rayudu, S/o Subba rao, Aged 62 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o 8-3-833/1 12 and 1 13/G, Kamalapuri Colony, Phase-|, near Satya Sai Nigamam, Srinagar Colony, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

5. Md. Ali Mohiuddin, S/o Anzar HussainKhan, Aged 35 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 17-2-8315, Chowni nade Ali Baig. Yakutpura, Near Retiki Masjid, Charminar, Hyderabad.

6. Doppalapudi Rrra Mohana Rao, S/o D. Mallikarjuna Rao, Hindu, Aged 53 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o H.No. 13-1-2001202, Sri Sai Pavani Enclave, Mothi Nagar, Balnagar, Ranga Reddy District.

7. Harish Meka, S/< r'4andheswara Rao, Aged 33 yrs, Hindu, Occ. Business, R/o M.LG-1, '169, 9th f,hase, K.P.H.B Colony, Kukatpally, Ranga Re,Jdy District. B. Pasala Josep[ 'v r]od Kumar S/o Arogya, Aged 36 yrs, Hindu, (.)cc: Business, Rr/o H.No. 2-52t21 Farther Balaiah Nagar, Old Alwal, HyderabaJ-010. ...RESPONDENTS/T}EFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under -q:rlion 15'l CPC praying that in the circurns:ances stated in the affidavit filed in ;rpport of the petition, the High Court may re pleased to Stay of all further proc:t eCings in pursuant to the O.S. No. 840 ot 2022 on the file of lX Addl. District Jud e, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar, pending disposal of the main Civil Revis c n f:'etition. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition unde' S rr;tion 151 CPC praying that in the circurnslances stated in the affidavit filed irr upport of the petition, the High Court may t.re pleased to suspend the order dal< cl 3011212024 passed in lA No 678 of 202'.4 n lA NO 660 ol 2022 in lA No 659 cr t022 in OS No 840 of 2022, on the file o1 l), Addl District Judge, LB Nagar. Counsel for the Petitio rer: Sri Avinash Desai representing Sri P. Sathwik Reddy Counsel for the Respo rdents: The Court made the fol owing: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P.No.406 OF 2025 ORDER Heard Mr. Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. P.Sathwik Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.

2. The challenge in the present civil revision petition is to the orderdated 30.12.2024 passed inI.A.No.678 of 2024 inI'A.No.660 of 2022 in I.A.No.659 of 2022 in O.S.No.84O of 2022 by the learned IX-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. Vide the said impugned order, the trial Court has rejected a petition filed by the petitioner/plaintiff under Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC. tn the said petition, the petitioner/plaintiff had sought for an inspection by - the Courl so fat' as the suit schedule premises is concemed which has been refused by the trial Court.

4. The substantial grievance that the leamed Senior Counsel appearing for thc petitioner/plaintiff has made is that in the course of rejecting the petition liled under Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC, the learned lrial Court has delved into certain areas which perhaps is 2 ----'1 I also dealin5; ,,r itr the merits of the suit and would aLs: reflect of having prin,t, .,: cie reaching to specific conclusion bascd lpon the documents tha ,,rere there on record. The contentior-r c,f th,: learned Senior Cou-rsr I is that while deciding the petition undr:r Order XVIII Rule lt (lPC, these observations were not nccesriary and these obserr.lt ot15 62n have far reaching consequen:es in the outcome of '.1 r: tiial itself and also so lar as the casc of t-re plaintiff is concemed or nerits.

5. Prima th, ru. this Court is also of the view that suclt e laborate obseruations rrr:. discussions were not required for tht: trir.Ll Courl to have madt: w I ile deciding the petition filed by the plrrirti lf under Order XVIII J?.r 6, 13 CPC. It is always within thc donLai r olrhe Presiding Jrrrll:r :.o invoke the provisions of Order XV I I .:tule t g CPC sub.lec. I - his satisfaction and rhar roo his su rjective satisfaction of tl t. dispute that arises between the contesting parties. The apprehenrii, n p26" by the leamed Senior Counsel so far the observations 'e 'it:cted while dismissing the application under Order X\,'lll R.,le 18 CpC cannot be said to be utfc,unded. Nonetheless. tl-r, conclusion arrived at by the trial c oLrrr whire // 3 dismissing the petition filed under Order XVII Rule 18 CPC also cannot be said to be bad in law and on facts

6. Accordingly, this Courr is inclined to.dispose of the civil revision petition at this junclure stating that let the trial Courl proceed with the suit in accordance with law without being in any manner influenced by the observations made while dismissing I.A.No.678 of 2024 in either deciding the suit on merits or in the course of deciding any of the pending or subsequent interlocutory applications which are or could be tlled by either of the parties.

7. The civil revision petition accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A.V.S. PRASAD ASSIS1ANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI4rOFFICER To,

1. The lX Additional District Judge' L'B Nagar' Ranga Reddy District 2. One CC to Sri P Sathwik Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies VH/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2110212025 (. !i O ?? ji, IUI] t * O6 :j l,r.l CH :;2- ORDER CRP.No.406 of 2025 DISPOSING OF CIRP 5 t.cr