1. Pinumalla lVlohan Kumar v. '1. Banka Purushotham

5. Smt.Zareena Tabassum, Wo Mohd.Abdul Rafi, aged about 50 years, Occupation housewife, R/o H.No.13-6-4361612, Khader Bagh, Near Sreedhar Kidney Centre, Golconda, Hyderabad.

6. Galipally Thirupathi, S/o Pocham, Aged about 44 years, Occupation Employee R/o H.No.8-6-72, Near Substation, Jyothinagar NTPC, Ramagundam, District Karimangar.

7. Potharajula Kristaiah, S/o f\4allaiah Aged about 35 years, Occupation Engineer Kesoram Cement Company Mechanical Dept., R/o Qr.No.D1i31lA, Basanthnagar, Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District.

8. Nalamasu Latha, Wo Shivaprasad Aged about 30 years, Occupaiion Household R/o Rangampet, Ivlio Choppadandi Karimanagar District.

9. Erukalla Sudarshanam, S/o Mallaiah Aged about 49 years, Occ. Employee at Singreni Colleries R/o Qr.No.T2-548, Tilaknagar, Godavari Khani District Karimnagar 'l0. Vollala Shekharaiah, Sio Rajaiah Aged about 48 years, Occ Employee at Singreni Colleries R/o Qr.No f2-3718,lncline Colony; Godavari Khani District Karimnagar

11. Oruganti Satyanarayana Reddy, S/o Neela Reddy Aged about 48 years, Occ. Singareni Employee R/o Katnapalli V/o Choppadandi Mandal Karimanagar District.

12.Macha Rayamallu, S/o Pochaam Aged about 66 years, Occ. Retd., Singarenr Employee R/o H.No.2-1-28, Bellampally, Adilabad District.

13. Kamarapu Rajendra Gopal, S/o Basavaiah Aged about 54 years, Occ. Employee in Postal Dept., R/o H.No.2-54, Kaman Road, Peddapalli, District Karim nagar. l4.Kalakuntla Ravinder Rao, S/o Rama Rao Aged 45 years, Occ_ Singareni Employee R/o Eradapalli (V), Shankarapatnam (M) Karimnagar Diitrict.

15.Annam Kedari, S/o Veeraiah Aged about 56 yers, Occ. Employee NTPC R/o Qr.No.B7l223, Jyothinagar NTPC Ramagundam, District Karirirnagar

16. Telukuntal Aravind, S/o Shankaraiah Aged about 28 years, Occupation Business Rio Qtr.No.E-76'A' Colony, Ramagundam District Karimnagar.

17. Dasari Odaiah, S/o Ellaiah Aged about 54 years, Occ. Employee Singareni Colleries R/o Kondapalakala, Manakonduru Mandal District Karimangar, Presently Q.No.'1400 Jawahar Nagar Godavari Khani, Ramagundam tvlandal, Karimnagar Dist.

18. Devarakonda Rajagopal, S/o Basavaiah Aged about 61 years, Occ. Retd., lngineer R/o H No.18-5-1 3, Near RNA Office, Godavari Khani Ramagundam hrlandal, Karimnagar District.

19. Gade Ramulu, S/o Chakrapani Aged about 36 years, Occupation Business R/o H. No.2-8-242, lrlukarampura, Karimangar Dist.

20. Battula Ramachandraiah, S/o Rajaiah Aged about 50 years, Occ. Employee Singareni R/o Qtr.No.C-3, Power House Colony Godavari Khani, Ramnagundam Mandal, District Karimnagar. 2l.Chandra Palaka Surekha, Wo Shashi Kumar Aged about 59 years, Occ. Government Employee R/o H.No.3-3-59, Sawaram Street, Karimangar

22. Devarakonda Triveni, Wo Niranjan Aged about 46 years, Occ. Household R/o H.No.1B-5-131, Near RNA Office Godavari Khani, Ramagundam lr/ahdal. District Karimnagar.

23.9ayeeda Al1rmad!, \Nlo Aziz Mahinuddin Aged about 47 years, Occ Household R/o H.No.5-2-50, Fathima Nagar, KarimangaiTown.

24.Dasari Balaiah, S/o Rajaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Singareni Employee R/o Konda Palakala, Manakondur ltrlandal District Karimnagar'

25.Vemula tt/lallesham, S/o Ramalingam Aged about 48 years, Occ. Singareni Employee R/o Qtr.No.T2-643, Tilaknagar, Godavari Khani Ramagundam Mandal, Karimnagar District.

26.Kanaparthy Rama Rao, S/o Rajeshwar Rao Aged about 59 years, Occ. Singareni Employee R/o Annaram Village, Manakondur IVIandal, Karimnagar District.

27. tt/adabhusi Vedantha Vamshi lvlohan, Sio I\4AVR Parthasarathy Aged about 43 years, Occupation Business R/o Qtr.No.DO/7 Staff Colony, Basanthnagar Ramagundam Mandal, District Karimnagar

28. MAVR Parthasarathy, S/o Opsika Charyulu Aged about 62 years, Occ. Etd., Employee R/o Qtr.No.DO/7 Staff Colony, Basanthnagar Ramagundam lvlandal, District Karimnagar.

29. Nimma Kaur, Wo Sardar Boram Singh Aged about 62 years, Occupation Household R/o H.No.2-5-38, Sikhwadi, Karimnagar. 30-satnam Karu, Wo Sardar Harban Singh Aged about 54 years, Occupation Household R/o H.No.2-5-38, Sikhwadi, Karimnagar 3l.Vodanala Anandam, S/o Ramaiah Aged about 44 yearc, Occ. Business R/o Laxmipuram, V/o Ramadugu Mandal, Karimanagar District ,..RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 13, 15 & 17 TO 32 (The Respondent No. 2 to 31 are not necessary part to this revision petition:) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AGINA SRINIVAS MURALI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI N JANARDHAN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER .;xsryz HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE IC LAKSHMA]\{ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.835 OF 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Janardhan Reddy, leamed counsel for respondent No.1 - Ptaintiff. In thc cause title itself, the petitioners stated that respondent Nos.2 to 32 are not necessary parties.

2. The present revision is filed challenging the order dated

12.11.2024 in I.A. No.1357 of 2024 in O.S. No.28 of 2012 passed by Principal District Judge, Karimnagar, whereby and u,hercunder, the petition filed by the petitioners under Order - IX, Rule - 7 read with I 5 1 of CPC to set aside the order dated I I . 10.2012 was dismissed.

3. Respondent No.1 filed asdtvide O.S. No.28 of 2012 against the petitioners herein and respondent Nos.2 to 32 for declaration of title and also for perpetual injunotion. The petitioncrs herein are anayed as defendantNos.l4 and 16 and they were set ex porte on

11.10.2012 for non-filing of written statement. The suit is posted lor defendants' evidence. At that stage, the petitioners herein had filed an Interlocutory Application videl.A. No.13 57 of 2024 under Order - IX. 2 KL,J CRP No.835 of2025 Rule - VII read with 151 of CPC, to set aside the ex parte order dated

11.10.2012 on the following grounds: i) They entered appearance by filing Vakaiat through Mr. K Ramakrishna Chary, Advocate, who was introduced by co-defendant, Mr. Dasari Odaiah, who was pursuing the case on behalf of some of the defendants. ii) Mr. Dasari Odaiah, defendant No.18 promised them to look after further proceedings on their behalf also. But, he reportedly expired and on coming to know about his demise, they approached their advocate and came to know that their advocate gave his Vakalat for them including deceased def-endant No.18. Then, they approached the present advocate, who advised them to file the present application

4. Respondent No.1 filed counter opposing the application on the grounds that the affidavit is silent when the petitioners came to know the death of defendant No.l8 and when they approached their advocate and the petitioners are planning to hold and stop the proceedings.

5. Vide ofder dated 12.11.2024, the trial Court dismissed the said application holding that it is not believable that the petitioners ..q*;rit'ryf I'I 1 KL,J CR? No.835 of2025 herein were unaware of the suit proceedings for a period of 12 _years without knowing the fate of the case; there are no bona fides in fiting the petition and that it did not see any valid reason to set aside the ex porte order. 6 Challenging the said order, rhe petitioners filed the present revlslon.

7. It is the specific contention of defendant No.14 that he has purchased Plot No.83, admeasuring 25g square yards in Survey No.33 of Bommakal Village under a registered sale deed bearing document No.5862 of I 993, dated 30.08.1993. Since rhen, defendant No.14 is in physical possession of the said property. The subject plot is part and parcel of suit schedule property in the said suit.

8. It is also specifically contended by defendant No.l6 that she is the absolute owner and possessor of ptot Nos.g5 and g6. admeasuring 341 and 307 square yards in Survey No.33 of Bommakal Village on the strength of a registered sale deed bearing document Nos.l458 of 1992 and 3380 of 1993, dared 15.04.1992 and

25.06.1993, respectively and she is in physicat possession ofthe same. Thus, both defendant Nos.14 and 16 have set up their claim. 'I'herefore, an opporhlnity should be given to them to come on record 1 l i I I I i i i , i I t 4 KI,J CRP No 835 of2025 and cross-examine PWs.l and 2. Without considering the aid aspects, the trial Court dismissed the said application holding that it is not believable that defendant Nos. I 4 and 16 were aware of the suit proceedings for a period of 12 years, without knowing the fate of the case The suit is not a simple suit for perpetual injunction and it is a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction where the plaintiff claims to be in possession and cnjoyment of the propemy.

9. As discussed above, the petitioners herein - defendant Nos.14 and 16 are claiming right over the aforcsaid plots basing on the registered documents in Survey No.33 of Bommakal Village According to them, it is part and parcel of the suit schedule property. The suit is for declaration and also tbr perpetual injunction Therefore, to do substantial justice, the petitioners - defendant Nos.l4 and 16 shall be given an opportunity to defend their case

10. In similar circumstances, vide order dated 27 .12.2024 in C.R.P. Nos.3732 and 3745 of 2024 and order dated 19.04.2024 in C.R.P. No.l120 of 2024, this Court granted liberly to defendant No.4, who is claiming ownership over Plot No.72, admeasrring 252.7 square yards in Survey No.32 of Bommakal Village, to take steps by way of frl.rr,g {pplications to reopen plaintifls evidence and to recall I t&:t;'/- t .Y ) KL-J CRP hvo 8li o12025 PWs.l and 2. The petitioners herein are also standing on the very same footing, and to maintain parity, they are entitled for the same relief.

11. The said aspects were not considered by the triat Court in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is liabte to be set aside.

12. In view of the above discussion, this Civil Revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated l2.ll.ZO24 in I.A. No.l357 of 2024 in O.S. No.28 of 2012 passed by principal Disrrict Juclge. Karimnagar, is set aside. I.A. No.1357 of 2024 is allowed setting asidc the ex porre order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the trial Court. Liberfy is granted to the petitioners herein to file appropriate application to re-open plaintifls evidence and to recall pWs.l and 2 if so advised and on filing such application, the trial Court shalt considcr and dispose of the same in accordance with law. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR t1't t sEcrior( o L. FFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge Karimnagar. Principal District Judge Karimnagar.

2. One CC to SRl. AGINA SRINIVAS MURALI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SS/gh I I EI HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 ORDER CRP.No.835 of 2025 1HE s14 r{ Ro (. ,a I 11ilE m )', * al's rc11 f (n( + ALLOWING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS b /,.< .to 1 ,/'- / ,/ /< " ,(-J