The High Court · 2025

lbrahim Patnam firlandal in Ranga Reddy District.

6. Kotha Ramesh, S/o late Dasharatha Age. 32 years, Occ. Agrl. 7. Kotha Prameela, D/o late Dasharatha Age. 28 years 8. Akula Saidamma, Wo Nagesh Age. 26 years, are R/o Chamalapally village of Nampally Mandal in Nalgonda District ...REVISION PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS AND

1. Kotha Ramulamma, Wio late tvlallaiah, Age. 60 Occ. Nil 2. Kotha Sathyanari, S/o late ttr'lallaiah, Age. 50 years Occ. Agriculture 3. Kotha Yadaiah, S/o late Mallaiah, Age 42 Occ Agrl. i I I I l, I i I I i

4. Kothapaly Lakshmamma, Wo Lakshmaiah, Age.35 Occ. Agrl all are R/o Koppole village of Gurrampode lvlandal-

5. Yedla Devakamma, Wo Ramachandraiah, Age. 80 years, R/o Koppole village of Gurrampode lVlandal in Nalgonda District

6. Pasunuru Padmamma, Wo Bhaskar, Age. 45 years R/o H.No.9-1165/4, Sanjeeva Nagar. Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetla of Hyderabad 7 Neravetla lndiramma, Wo Sathyanarayana, Age. 42 years, H.No.B-'100, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetla of Hyderabad 8. Moguthala Chrttemma, Wo Narsimha Age. 38 years,-R/o H.No.4-120, Muthyalamma Bazar, Devarakonda Town and Mandal in Nalgonda District. Respondents No.5 to 8 are not necessary parties in this Petition ..RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated itl the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to STAY the further proceeding of Arguments in O.S.No.1 1 of 2017 on the file of the Honourable Family Court, lllrd Addl Dist and Session Judge Nalgonda. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 573 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 05 022025 passed in l.A. No. 60 of 2025 in O.S. No. 11 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Judge, Family Court-cum-lll Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Nalgonda. Between:

1. Kotha Radhamma, W/o late Dasharatha, Age_ 63 years Occ. Agrl R/o Koppole village of Gurrampode Mandal presently at Chamalapally village of Nampally Mandal. 2 Yedla Anjamma, W/o Bixam, Age.44 years, Occ. Agrl. R/o Koppole village of Gurrampode Mandal

3. Yedla Hemalatha, W/o Bixam Age.42 years, R/o Adavr Devulapally village of Damaracherla village of Nalgonda District.

4. Neela Chilakamma, Wo Saidulu Age. 38 years, R/o Koppole viltage Gurrampode Mandal

5. Akula Kalamma, Wo Venkatesh Age. 35 years, R/o Khanapur village lbrahim Patnam Mandal in Ranga Reddy Diskict

6. Kotha Ramesh, S/o late Dasharatha Age. 32 years, Occ. Agri. 7. Kotha Prameela, D/o late Dasharatha Age. 28 years 8. Akula Saidamma, Wo NageshAge- 26 years, are R/o Chamalapally village of Nampally Mandal in Nalgonda District. ...Revision Petitioners/Pla intiffs AND 1

4. E 6 7 Kotha Ramulamma, Wo late Mallaiah, Age. 60 Occ. Nil Kotha Sathyanari, S/o late Mallaiah, Age. 50 years Occ. Agriculture Kotha Yadaiah, S/o Iate Mallaiah Age. 42 Occ. Agri. Kothapaly Lakshmamma, Wo Lakshmaiah Age. 35 Occ: Agrl all are R/o Koppole village of Gurrampode Mandal Yedla Devakamma, Wo Ramachandraiah Age. 80 years, R/o Koppole village of Gurrampode Mandal in Nalgonda District Pasunuru Padmamma, Wo Bhaskar, Age. 45 years R/o H.No.9-1 '165/4, Sanjeeva Nagar, Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetla of Hyderabad Neravetla lndiramma, Wo Sathyanarayana Age. 42 years, H.No.B-100, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Shapur Nagar, Jeedimetla of Hyderabad Moguthala Chittemma, Wo Narsimha, Age. 38 years, R/o H.No.4-'120, Muthyalamma Bazar, Devarakonda Town Mandai in Nalgonda District. Respondents No. 5 to B are not necessary parties in this petition ...RESPONDENTS/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 the further proceeding in O.S.No.11 of 2017 on the file of the Honble Family Cou(, Cum lll Additional Dist Session Judge Nalgonda, pending disposal of the main civil revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner in both cases : Sri. Edem Ramakrishna Counsel for the Respondents in both cases: ... The Court made the following: ORDER i I i i I I I I I I 1*,*rery '"./ , HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CRP.Nos.548 and 573 of2o25 COMMON ORDER: Both these Civil Revision Petitions are filed aggrieved by the common order, dt.05.02.2025 in IA.No.60 and 61 of 2025 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-cum III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nalgonda, respectively.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners and perused the record.

3. The petitioners herein are the plaintiffs in the above suit. The said suit was hled for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. Pending the suit, pe[itioners herein have hled the underlying interlocutory applications seeking to reopen and receive additionai documents on behalf of petitioner/ plaintrff.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that only during thc cross- examination of DW- 1, it has come to their notice that the documents now sought to be hled are necessary for adjudication of the suit, and as such, the underling interlocutory applications have been filed to re-open the plaintiffs side evidence and receive the documents; that the Court below without appreciating the relevance g!* importance of the said documents for adjudicating r I i I l 2 the /rs involved in the suit, has erroneously dismissed the underlying applications; and thus sought for setting aside the order dismissing the underlying applications by the Court below 5 I have taken note of the submissions made

6. Firstly, it is to be notecl that the petitioners are plaintiffs in the above suit filed for partition and separate possession and the suit is of the year 2OlZ .

7. Though the petitioners contend that the necessity to hle additional documents arose during the cross_examination of DW_1 and on the advice of the counscl to bring them on record, they had procured the said documents from the revenue authorities, however, the Court below taking note of the fact that the aforesaid documents ought to have been filed either along with the suit or before the trial in the suit had commenced, and not alter the cross_ examination of DW-2 was completed had dismissed the I.As.

8. The Court below by noting as abovc, found the underlying applications as having been filed at a belated stage, more particularly, when there is no plausible explanation as to why the petitioners failed to file the said documents all these years, had dismissed the said applications. 3 g. Even before this Court, no plausible explanation is forthcoming on behalf of the petitioners for not filing the said documents along with the suit or before commencement of trial' 10 Though it is contended that it is only after the cross examination of DW- 1 they were advised to obtain additional documents, said submission cannot be a basis to reopen and receive the documents at a belated stage, more particularly, when the suit itself is posted for arguments.

11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no interfercnce is called for with the order of the Court below in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article '227 of the Constitution of lndia.

12. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions fail and are dismisscd. No order as to costs.

13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these CRPs shall stand closed. SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// EGTION OFFICER To,

1. The Judge, Family Court-cum-lll Addl. District nd Sessions Judge at Nalgonda.

2. One CC to Sri. Edem Ramakrishna, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies DL/PSL!* HIGH COURT DATED:2110212025 COMMON ORDER CRP.No.548 &573 of 2025 '( t ,iJ ).. i HE ST4rc 23 APn ilffi c {) t: o 1r rl DISMISSING THE C,R-PS I