The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS '1. R. Sumathi, Wo. Late R. SanjeevaRao Aged about.60 Years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 1-3-901 ,Kavaiguda, Hyderabad.

2. R. Jayalakshmi, Wo. N. Raju Age about . 39 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. 3- 3-31 1, Chappal Bazar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

3. R. Dinesh, S/o. Late R. Sanjeeva Rao Age about. 37 Years, Occ. private Service R/o. 1-3-901, Kavaiguda, Hyderabad

4. l. Vijayalakshmi, Wo. l. Raju Age about. 34 Years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. 12- 11-1145, Boudhnagar, SitaphalMandi, Secunderabad.

5. Smt. K. Lakshmi, Wo. K. Ganesh Kumar, Age. 33 Years, Occ. House wife R/o. K-56/1, Narsimha Nagar, Mallapur, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District. ..,RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS i/ lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 15i 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.3',l4 of 2022 on the file of Hon,ble lll Additionat District and Sessions Judge-cum-prl. Family court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At. Kukatpally. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. T NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondents: SRl. E. PHANI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION P ETITION NO:415 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of lhe constitution of lndia, against the Docket order dated 01108t2024 passed in l.A. No. 668 of 2024 in o s. No. 314 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble lllAdditional District and sessions Judge-cum-prl. Family court, Medcha l-Malkajgiri District, At. Kukatpally Between: 1 2 3 4 Punnamaraju Sharada, Wo. Late. p. KameswaraRao, Aged about. 63 years, Occ. Housewife are Residents of LIG-48, phase-ll D-harmareddy Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. Punnamaraju Naga Jyothi, D/o. Late. p. KameswaraRao Aged about. 30 Years, Occ. Govt. Service Punnamaraju Haritha, D/o. Late. p. KameswaraRao Aged about. 29 years, Occ. Nil Punnamaraju Naga Vaishnavi, D/o. Late. p. KameswaraRao Aged about. 22 Years, Occ. Nil All are Residents of LlG48, phaseJl Dharmareddy Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. AND ...PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 2 4 5 R. Sumathi, Wo. Late R. SanjeevaRao Aged about. 60 years, Occ_ Housewife, R/o. H. No. 1-3-901, Kavaiguda, Hyderabad R. Jayalakshmi, W/o. N. Raju /Age about . 39 years, Occ. House wife. Rio. 3_ 3-31 1 , Chappal Bazar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. R. Dinesh, S/o. Late R. SanjeevaRao Age about. 37 years, Occ. private Service R/o. 1-3-901, Kavaiguda, HyOeLOaA. I Vijayalakshmi, Wo. l. Raju Age about. 34 years, Occ. House Wife, Rlo. 12_ 1 1-1 145, Boudhnagar, SitaphalMandi, Secunderabad. Smt. K. Lakshmi, Wo. K. Ganesh Kumar, Age. 33 years, Occ. House wife R/o. K-56/1 , Narsimha Nagar, Mallapur, Kapra, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS 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 O.S. No.314 of 2022 on the file of Hon'ble lll Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Prl. Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, At. Kukatpally. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. T NARAYANA Counsel forthe Respondents: SRl. E. PHANI KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR STIAVTLI C.R.P.Nos.414 and 415 of 2o.25 COMMON ORDER: Both these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by way of a common order since the issue raised in these Revision Petitions is one and the same

2. C.R.P.No.414 of 2025 is hled aggrieved by the docket order, dated O1.O8.2024 passed in I.A.No.667 ol 2024 in O.S.No.314 of 2022 and C.R.P.No.415 of 2025 is filed aggrieved by the docket order, dated Ol.Oa.2O24 passed in I.A.No.66a of 2024 in O.S.No.3l4 of 2022 on the hle of the learned III Additional District zrnd Sessions Judge-cum Principai Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally.

3. Heard Sri T. Narayana, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri E. Phani Kumar, learnecl counsel lor the respondents

4. For the sake of convenience, the facts in C.R.P.No.414 ol 2025 are hereunder discussr:d. . .,' AKS,J crp 414 & 415 2025

5. tearned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.314 ol 2022, filed by the respondents, wherein, the suit was filed seeking for recovery of possession. l,earned counsel had further contended that the petitioners have filed I.A.Nos.667 & 668 of 2024 in O.S.No.3l4 ol 2022 to recall and re-open the DWl evidence and the said I.As. vide docket order dated O1.O8.2O25, were allowed with a condition to adduce the evidence of defendant by ltling chief affidavit by entering him into witness box, failing which, the petitions shall stand dismissed. However, for various reasons, the petitioners could not file the chief affidavit or enter into the witness box' Learned counsel for the petitioner had further contended that an opportunity be given to the petitioners to lead evidence before the trial Court in the interest of justice' Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the Civil Revision Petitions by directing the trial Court to permit the petitioners to lead defendants evidence and the petitioners would conclude their evidence on or before

15.O4.202s. 3 AK5,J ( rp 4t4 & 415i2025

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had contended that earlier also, the petitioners were absent and they have filed I.A.Nos.667 \ and 668 of 2024 to recall and re-open DWl evidence and the trial Court has allowed the said I.A vide docket order dated 01.08.2024, as a last indulgence, an opportunity was given to the petitioners to lead evidence, but they have not availed the evidence. Therefore, right to lead evidence by the petitioners was rightly forfeited and there is no error in the docket order passed by the trial Court. Therefore, there are no merits in the Civil Revision Petitions and the same are liable to be dismissed.

7. This Court having considered the rival submissions made by the parities is of the view that the present Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of by directing the petitioners to lead their evidence on or before 15.O4.2025, AS a last indulgence, and no further time would be granted to them. If the petitioners lead their evidence on or before 15.04.2025, the trial Court shall permit them to re-open the evidence of the petitioners and decide the case on merits. 4 AK5,J ctp 414 &,415 2025

8. With the above Said observations/directions, both these Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. No costs

9. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed. SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD D PUTY REGISTRAR /ITRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER To, The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum- Principal Family Court' rrri"o"n"i-rtllrrrr,giri District at Kukatpally ;::"';;' ;"R i-i r'tnnnvnrun novocate [oPU c] - -. . ^' - ^ ^. . ; il i; s'ni. ennurr PHANI KUMAR Advocate [oPUc] Two CD CoPies I 2 4 PM/PSL \? HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 COMMON ORDER GRP.Nos.414 & 415 o12025 1i-r. ; fAl {'- )) o O 2$ [uB ?ffi i D /iS DAt .' ' - DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS g ..f Jb \C, . X'.l* qV