Bhattu @ Prathikantam Ramachander Raju v. 1. Bhattu @ Prathikantam Sudhakar Raju

6. Smt. Bhattu @ Prathikantam Sukanya, Wo. Pruthivirajm, Aged about 42 years, Occ- Housewife. Ri/o. H.No.5-6-31, Vaidehi Nagar, Road No.2 Vanasthalipuramm, Hyddrabad 7 Smt. Bhattu @ Prathikantam Sreevani, W/o. Late praveen Raju, Aged about 10 years, Occ- Business. R:/o. H.No. 5-6-31 , Vaidehi Nagar, poad No. 2 Va nasthalipu ram m, Hyderabad. B Smt Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rama Krishna, S/o. Late B,p. Sudhakar Raju, Aged aboul 38 years, Occ- Service, Ft/o. H.No. 5-6-31, Vaidehi Nagar, Road No. 2 Vanasthalipuramm, Hyderabad. ...Respondents 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 proceedings in oS No. 81 of 2022 (old os No. 129 of 12018) on the file of senior civil Jucqe at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District pending the above CRP. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 817 0F 2025 Petition under Artide 22r of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order daled27l02l2o25 passed in t.A.No.143 of 2o2s in os No. ai otzo:zzltto os No. 2018) on the file of the court of the Senior civil Judge at shadnagar, Ranga , 129,9f .r Reddy District. Between: Bhattu @ Prathikantam Ramachander Raju, s/o Late B.p Satyanarayana Raju, Aged.about 6't yj-'ars, O_cc. Business, R/o. i:tot No. 177, Gayathii lfigliAniiprr, Abdullapurmet, Flanga Reddy District. AND '1. Bhattu. @ Prathikantam sudhakar Raju, (Died per Lrs as the defendant No. 3 !o 5) (Amended as per the orders in lA Nb. 298 of 2022 orders cltd. o4t01t2023). ...Petitioner

2. B.hattu @ Prarhihantam prabhakar Raju, s/o. Late B.p. Krishnam Raiu. Aoed yea.s, Occ. Business, R/o. ptot No. 37, Enctave Sii;i";s;:'Rb;; g.bot4 9.9 No. 2, Jillelaguda, Hyderabad.

3. Bhattu @ Prathikantam Venkateshwar Raiu, s/o. Late B.p. Krishnam Raiu Aged abolt 59 years,_Occ. Business, R/o. Flat No. 301, SrO ilo;i,tBR-'-' Enclave, Road l'1o.2, Triveeni Nagar, Balapur, Hyderabid

4. Bhattu @ Prath kantam Venkat Raju, s/o Late B.p. satvanslsr,,sns pslu. lqeo.g!o.qt se years, occ. Retd Govt. Emptoyee, R/;liioaNIi. iliil:-' uayarnn Nagar. Anajpur, Abdullapurmet, R.R. District.

5. Prathikantam l\arshimha Raju, S/o. Muralidhar Raiu, Aqed about 56 vears. occ. Head constabre Hc247, Rl/o. euarter ru". ilsroii No.1. Hiili,i.""'"' Quarters, Yoursufg uda police lines, yousufgudi, Hyd;i;Ui. years, Ooc. Housewife. R/o. H.No.5-6-31, Vaidehi Nagar, Road No.2 Vanasthalipuramm, Hyderabad.

7. Smt. Bhattu @ Prathikantam Sreevani, W/o. Late Praveen Raju, Aged about ' 40 year.s, Occ. Business. Rl/o. H.No. 5-6-31 , Vaidehi Nagar, Road No. 2, Vanasthalipuramm, Hyderabad. B. Smt Bhattu @ Prathikantam Rama Krishna, S/o. Late B.P. Sudhakar Raju, Aged about. 38 years, Occ. Service, Fl/o. H.No. 5-6-31 , Vaidehi Nagar, Road No. 2 Vanasthalipuramm, Hyderabad. ...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 OS No.8'1 of 2022 (old OS No. 12912018) on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District pending the above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners in both CRPs : Sri Vedula Srinivas representing Sri R Bala Subramanyam Ea' Counsel for the Respondents in both CRPS : ___ The Court made the'following: COMMON ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.8l5 and 817 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since ihe issue arising out of the instalt Civil Revision Pr:t itions is one and the same and the parties are also same, they are being disposed of by this (lommon Order

2. Hearrl Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. Bala Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners in Civil Revision Petition Nos.815 ancl 817 of 2025

3. Civil Revision Petition No.815 of 2025 is filed bv the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing ttre Order dated 27 .O2.2025 in I.A.No.143 ,tf 2025 in O.S.No.i3L of 2022 (Old O.S.No.l29 of 2018) passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Shadnagar, Ranga, Reddy District; arLcl Civil Revision Petition No.817 of 2O2'.j is filed by the same petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Common Ordr:r dated

27.O2.2O2a; in I.A.No.144 of 2025 in O.S.No.81 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.129 of 2018) passed by the Senior Civit Judge, 1 I i I ) PSK,J ctp _815&817 _2025 at Shadnagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short, 'the impugned Common Order').

4. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.815 of2025 are discussed herein.

5. The petitioner herein is defendalt No. 1 in the above suit, viz., O.S.No.81 of 2022. Initially, the plaintiffs hled the said suit under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to gralt a decree for partition and separation possession of the suit schedule property by dividing it into equal shares in respect of the plaintiffs and defendants, and for other reliefs.

6. Pending the above suit, the petitioner herein (i.e', defendant No.1) has filed I.A.No.143 of 2025 in O.S.No'S1 of 2022 under Order VIII Rule 17 tlw Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to recall PW.3 and DW.2 for the purpose of cross-examination; and also I.A.No.144 of 2025 in O.S.No.S1 of 2022 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to re-open the evidence of PW.3 and DW.2 for the purpose of cross-examination. -? ,/I 3 PSK,J crP til5&817 2025

7. However, uide the impugned Common Orcler, the above LA.s stood dismissed by the Trial Court

8. Assailing the sarne, the Civil Revision Petition Nos.815 a-nd 817 of 2025 are {iled by the petitioner herein.

9. Mr.Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior (Sounsel appearing on behalf of Mr. R. Bala Subramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the present Civil Revision Petitions the petitioner 1S confining his prayer on1.y to recall and reopen the evidence of DW.2. He further suLbmitted that the chief-examination aflldavit of DW.2 wasr filed only on O2.O1.2O25 arld thereirlter the matter was posted for cross-examination of I)W.2 on

12.02.202:5 He further submitted that on the said date, the petition er's counsel could not present himse'l f before the Trial Court to conduct cross-examination of DW.2 as his father had expired on O8.O2.2O25. The petitioner herein also could not appear before the Trial O,rurt on

12.O2.2O2;t as he was suffering from ill-hea,lth. Therefore, the Trial Court, after having noted the said facts, ctosed the right of the petitioner herein to cross-examine DW.2 ald l 4 PSK,J ctp _815&817 _2025 posted the matter for trial, and fixed the case for fina-l arguments on 26.03.2025.

10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to the hndings given by the Trial Court insofar as disbelieving the statement given by the counsel appearing before the Trial Court on affidavit that on account of the death of his father, the counsel could not appear before the Trial Court on 12.02.2025. Therefore, the stand taken by the Trial Court in dismissing the above I.A.s is too harsh ald would be detrimental to ttre petitioner herein. t' 1 l. He further contended that there was no inordinate delay occurred. on the part of the petitioner herein from the date on which the default arose, i.e., 12.02 -2025 and the date on which they have moved the above applications for re-opening and recalling on 21,.O2.2025. He further contended that the Trial Court ought to have taken a more liberal and pragmatic view in the course of deciding the above applications and could have called upon DW'2 for cross-examination. He therefore prayed for setting aside of the impugn ed common order and allow the petitions. 5 PSK,J .rp_8 r5&817_2025 L2. Upon due consideration of the entire fir,:ts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the cotrsidered opinion thal though the petitioner (i.e., defendeurt No.l) has not prroduced any document in respect of cleath of father of 1-tLe counsel, appearing on his behalf before the Trial Courl, however there was a statement rn.ade on affidavit blr the party in support of the same and there was no reason tbr disbelieving the said averment. l\{oreover, the staternernt made on affidavit by the party couicl have been verified from other sources as well. Anothe,r, aspect which neecls to be considered is that, there rvas no opposition c,n the said contention of the petitioner f;-om the opposite side which should a_lso have given sufficient indication ,rf the averment made to be correct. \

13. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned C,cmmon Order date,l 27.O2.2O25 in I.A.No.143 of 2025 arld I.A.No.l44 of 2025 in O.S.No.B1 of 2022 (Old O.S.No.129 of 2OlB) passed by the Senior Civil Judge, at Shzxlnagar, Ranga Reddv District, insofar as reopening and recalling of DW.2 is concerned, deserves to be and is accordingly set aside. The Oivil Revision petition Nos.g15 and 817 <tf 2O2S accordingl5, srtands allowed. / 6 P5K,J crp 815&817_2o25

14. The Trial Court is directed to take up the matter for hearing on26.03.2025, on which date the Trial Court shall give one more opportunity to the petitioner to cross- examine DW.2. The Trial Court shall also fix a date of less than 1O days' time commencing ftorrt' 26.03.2025 to recall DW.2 for cross-examination on the specified date. The petitioner shall cross-examine the said witness on the said given date itself with no further adjournment permissible in this regard under any circumstances; and thereafter the Trial court shall proceed and decide the matter on its own merits and in accordalce with law at the earliest.

15. No order as to costs.

16. As a sequel, miscellaleous applications pending if any. shall stand closed. AS S SD/. K AMMAJ T REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To, l.TheSeniorCivilJudgeatShadnaqar'RangaReddyDistrict ;. d;"c"i i; * R eati suoramunv'l'' Ad'o"ute [oPUCl 3. Two CD CoPies o ADK HIGH COUR.T DATED:21 10312025 I t COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.815 and 817of 2025 e $TATE aA 1 a- c< ) d 1. 2 5 t\Afl 7L, . l.-,.. -\i:i_.: _-.; ?$'6 'i :' * ..<) ALLOWING THE BOTH CRPs