The High Court · 2025

1 KoduruSunesh,s/oK.PitcheswaraRaoAge3T.yrs,occ'Business,RJoPlot ii;:1t;,Hl;-coronv, cri'u"1ap'ram' viiaviwa*axrisrrna Rf|lij'fr tvl/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri Krishna Reddy' S/o Rohith Kumar Reddv, Aged about iivAr;' occupation' Business' office at Konduru i)"r"if L, pi"1'r.r;: io,- zt, za, 26, rnolra Nalar' Gachibowli' Ranga Reddv District, HYderabad- tr//s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri Pasham Amarnath Reddy' i'""Xrut:mX'*:''$i:,.n,",1:B?l!3li',Iil3t";&',1'3:'"?;'ffi l'i5"n' Reddy District, HYderabad' 3 ...RESPONDENT Nos 2 & 3 / JDRs IA NO 1 0F 2025 Petition under Section r5'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit filed in support of the- petition, ine" Uigh Court may Ue pteaseO io staf all further proceedings in Ep No 2b1 of 2023 rir" tt,-," colri oiFri""iplr Junior civil Judge-cum-VW Additional Judiciat Magistrate of First class, Kukatpally, pe-ding disposal of the CRp. "nir.," Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. KONDApARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel forthe Respondent: SRt B. MAYUR REDDY, SENTOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVI sto N PETITION N O: 1065 OF 2025 Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution gf lndia against the order dated 22-01-2025 in E.A.No.0S at 2OZ5 and E.A.No. 1+ ot ZOZS in E.A.No.91 of 2024 in E p.No. 277 0f 2023 0n the fire of ttre court of the principar Junior Civil Judge -cum- Vil Additionat Judiciat Magistrate ;i Fir"t Clu";,-i;kui;;ii;' Between Dama Venkat Rao. S/o Dama China Kondaiah, Aged about JB years, Occupation. Business, Residino at ptot Serilingamparly, Raiga Reddy Drstrict,Jelanganu-. " -" Gachibowri, _ No. ,; -;i . ';i:"isl"ino,r."nrsrr, ANO 1 2 3 ...pETITIONER/ Ctaim petitioner nesponoeii-v'ELrp""j5"ii,r"lit'oun X:;rrl*Tl :|-,:::: ^s^u-n Fgu r!-, lr.la, s/o sa nha ba rh ut a Ra m a R ao, as e 42yrs. \Jcu. ronware Fngrneer. R/o 14944 pepper pike place, parfer Coi-Aolii. Rep by his GpA Holder _sn sanr'ioarnrii [Jilr' n"o, s/o Late Venkateshwarlu Aoed ahorri Zoyrs. Occ. niO. E.pliv"", R/o Ftat No.F1, Koduru Residencvl Near- vvn ' Hos[Gr, i_ruur-qr'.i ",V]Evawada, District Ap Krishna M/s. NEXT GEN. Reoresenred by its partner. Sri Krishna Reddy gari Rohith Kumar Reddv S/o K Krishna c"dov, aseJlb;;i jU;;;1;. b"cupation Business. Ofiice ar Kondurrr yqn:i6f,. FI.i N" irj, zl)"a.)s, rnoirc tt"g"r, Gachibowli, Ranga Reddy District, Hyder;;;.-"' - " '- '" M/s NEXT GEN, Represented by its partner, sri pasham Amarnath Reddv. 9/o Vijaya Shekhar Reddy, aoed'abtrisiiv*r.' "ol" E;;i;"t. Afiil; ;i"'"r, Konduru Mansion. pto,lo zo" zt, zq, zi. i"iii r.ri&r, 'ilin,o.wri, Reddy District, Hyderabad Ranga ..RESPONDENT Nos. 2 & 3 / JDRs lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in tne arrioa"ii nf ed in support of the petition' ine Hiqfr Court may be plea-sed to stay ,iitrrii *'p,."*Jing. in rp ilo.ziz of 2023 onlhe fil" of the court of Principal lraselCum-Vlll naoitional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' ir".i '"Ci'lii- fuf<atpaf f V, pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B' MAYUR REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL ndpneseNrrruG sRl v's'R'M'v' PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVISION PETITION N o: 1066 0F 2025 Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the order dated 22'01'2025 in E'A'No2 of 2025 and E'A'No'12 ol 2025 in E'A No'79 i.i'.r'r".zislt ziii "" the file of the court of the Principal Junior Iiii'ro Vtu Additionat Judiciat Magistrate of First class, Kukatpallv ;:;ij;d;:";- '. Between: Dama Venkat Rao, S/o Dama china Kondaiah, -Aged Business. Residing at Pro? SEiiii.r.-s-'"*prily' Raiga Reddv District Telansana' "No'" )0, aborrt 38 vears occupation' -il-, 'z+l 25, lndiran-agar, Gachibowli, AND ...PETITIONERY Claim Petitioner '1 Surishettv Kondanda Rama Prabhu' S/o S S A Naray-an Rao' Aqed about 45 ' ;;;".'.'o;J;rtion. rnlpr"vll n"tiSinq at Flat No 206' Prasad Heishts' il. N";.25 -"1 il 3'i7p;zoo, sdn ulut Nagai' Kham mam Dlstrict' TS ..ReiPondent No. 1/ DHR 2- M/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Krishna Reddv Gari Rohith Krrmar Reddv, slo t<nsr'nihe6Ov' ng"A jbout- 35 vears Occupation' Business. otfice at xono,i'-rt'l'isoii' pl6i rtro zo' 21' 24' 25' lndira Nagar' 6li,ni6iri,ri, Cr^ga Reddv District' Hvderabad.

3. M/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri P^asham Amarnath Reddy' -luout ssiyrs' .Occ' Business' Office at s/o Viiava Shekhar neoiv, as'60 i"ial?I'[/|r""lidn, prot NJ]lo. if ii' zs' lndira Nagar' Gachibowli' Ransa ReddY District, HYderabad' ...RESPONDENTNos 2&3 lA NO: 1 OF 20 25 Petition under Section 151 CpC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the-affidavit fited in support of the^petition, in,i iigh ,"y be pteased to stay afl further proceedinos in Ep No.2i5 0r ?iI23 0nir," rir. or tr,L c.lri tiipri""ipj Junior civir Judge-cum-V*. Additionar .iudiciar of First crass, Kukatpally, pending disposal of the CRp rnO p"., Counsel for the petitioner: SRI. KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR counsel forthe Respondent: sRr B. MAyuR REDDY, sENroR couNsEL ";;; -Ma!rstrate -'' REPRESENTING SRI V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SAIIAXA CIVIL REVIS ION PETIT ION NO: 1067 0F 2025 Petition under Articre 227 0f the constitution of rndia against the order dated 22-01-2o2 S in E-A.No. 03 of 2O2s ana e.n_Uo.- i s of 2OZ5 in E.A.No.75 of 2024 in E P'No.278 of zo23 on the fire or ttre court'of the principar Junior civil Judge -cum- v, Additionat Judiciar rrr"gi.irr;i First crass, Kukatpary Between Dama Venkat Rao. S/o Dama China Kondaiah, Aged abouf 38 years, Occupation. Business, Residino ar pror 29, Serilingan patty, Raiga Reddy o,strict,Tetaiga";]' '"' Gachibowri, -ii."'ii]"is]"'inn,,-"n"g"r. ^t'to.- AND 1 ...pETlTlONERy Claim petitioner ym?.Arza, Wo Srinivas Arza Aged^about 42 years, Occupatton. Emolovee Residinq ar Ftat No Gl xoouiu nesiot".v,' V"iri"J;'i',l,i ni",Hi.ii, Labbipet. viiavawada. Krishna. Distr rui, A"Jr-,.i'p,li*rri irJs.nry Residinq at 3255, cardenia Avenue. wesron, rrdiioi,-u5n 'Rli"'uv iris cpn holder, Sri Sankabathula Rama Ran Sio 'rate VtniJGri*?r,]] Ageo abour Tsvrs Occ Rtd. Empr6y.". R/o Ftar No_ Cr X.U-riu iiJ"io'En.lv. Oi"nnururdhan Rao Street, Labbipet, Vijayawada, xris^ni o,tlriti 'niiiil, iJ,.,il"n Respondent No. .t / DHR 2 3 M/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its partner, Sri Krishna Reddy, S/o Rohith Kumar Re_ddy, Aged about 35 ye'ars, Occupition fiulinJ".,"Ofi." at Konduru Mansion, Plot No.2O. 21.?4.2-5, rnoira Nagar, Ga"nit oiri.,-if"ngu nu,jCy District, Hyderabad. M/s NEXT GEN, Represented by its partner, Sri pasham Amarnath Reddv. S/o Vijaya Shekhar Reddy aged ibout 39yrs, O;c B;;i;;;. Off,;;;i*-, Komuru Mansion. ptot ruo.26. 2t. za zs.'tiiliia rvugr,t c;Jniuorili nlnga Reddy District. Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT Nos. 2 & 3 / JDRs IA NO: 10 F 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in tn" rttiouuii riiuJ in support of the petition,ihe High Court may be pleased to stay ,iirrrii?'pr""*Jing, in rp ilo z7a Ot 2023 on the fil. of the Court of Principal ii'lti- lragelcum-Vlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' jr"., kufatpatty, pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B' MAYUR REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL nipReserunNc sRl v's'R'M'v' PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL R EVISION PETITION No: 1068 0F 2025 Petition Uiider Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia against the ord-er aatea'zi-oi-ioii in e.n.ruoo1 of 2025 and E'A'No'11 ot 2o25 in E'ANo'83 "izoza --e.p.No. 274 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior vrrr naaitionat Judiciat Masistrate of First class, Kukatpally ;;ii;;;;;nl- Between: Dama Venkat Rao, S/o Dama China Kondaiah' Aged aborrl 38 vears' Occupation 2t; '24i i5' lndiran'agar' Gachibowli' Business. Residing at eroi X;'" 5"riiii"s#p"ily, Raiga Reddv District' Telangana' 'b' ...PETITIONER/ Claim Petitioner AND

1. Kum. Bandi Rupa Lavanya D/o Bandi Koti Reddy' Aqed about 22 years' occuoation. Employee, xEiiOing at Fanchavathi Apartments' Opp JNTU' praoathi Naqar, Hvderab,il-iil"o1n?r - naarkajglrj District Presently Residing ;i?'1,tr. )qlllrv"irLtr"v si"ui'-E'if ror.onto 6N' M4x1G5' canada R.e.p bv ;:,r.'GPA;{;ia; e. Koti n;"d; sl,o iate Gansi Reddv' Aoed about T0 Years' occ Retd Employee, Rv" ij;ii'6 ii6+I p"n"l"iininpirtments opp-JNTU' ''l'iU;;-' tivolrao'0, lr'ledchal - Malkajsiri Districr' ilUthi" ResPondent No 1/ DHR 'sio ' iffi;; R;dr 2-tr//s.NEXlGEN,RepresentedbyitsPartner,SriKrrshnaReddygariRohith iil"ii.ii. otii". at xonduiu MinLionl Plot No zo 21' 24 25' Indira Nagar' 6"r""1ii[L'irti n; ;sa Redd v D istrict' H vd erabad' xiisnna neaov, Aged about-35 vears' occupation' : Ivl/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri Pasham Amarnath Reddy' " iii; fi;; sh"r'tiai ii"oov, ased'about as vrs'' o9c Business' office at Xt""i,]r,iiffi;iln, prot uo zol zr , zq, zs' tiaira Nasar' Gachibowli' Ransa ReddY District, HYderabad' ...RESPONDENT Nos' 2 &3 / JDRs lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 15'1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in- the.affidavit filed in support of.fe^g9tr!i9q,itJHigf, Cor.t .ay be pteased to stay all further proceedings in Ep No.274 ot 2oz3 onin" ritu or ,il-c;;; oip;"i;rl J-unior Civil Judge-Cum-VIil . .fAO!g1af Judiciat Ir/a!istrare Of First Class, Kukatpally, pending disposal of the CRp and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. KONDApARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : SRI B. MAYURREDDY, SENTORCOUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVISIO NPETITION NO: 1069 0F 202s Petition Under lr-ticle 221 of the Constitution of lndia against the order dated 22-01-2O25 in E.A.No.01 ot 2O2S anU e.a-f.fo.f S ot 2025 in E.A.No.99 of 2024 in E'P'No'282 oI 2oz3 on the fire or tne court-.of the principar Junior Civil Judge -cum- V,t Additionat Judiciat Magistrate oi iirst Ctass, ftk"i;;ii;,. Between: Dama Venhat Rao, S/o Dama China Business. Residinq ar ptor Serilingamparty, Ranga Reddy District, i;ta;gan, " --' ^No 29, u, 'ia."")s, "i"o;riidJil _Kondaiah, Aged about JU years, OccuoaLion d;#irb1;;] AND 2 3 ...PETITIONERy Claim petitioner Smt. hoduru Raiini. Wo K pircheswara Rq9.4g.57 yrs, Occ Housewife, Rl/o Plot N0.105, Film Colony, Crisurajapuram, Vi;aiawaC'a."Xrsnna District, A p. .. Respondent No.1/ DHR fvl/s NEX.T GEN, Reoresenrert by its p^a!-ine!., Sri K!-ishna Reddy, Slo Rohith Kumar Reddy. Aqed abort j5 years, Occupation euiinerr, bfice at Konduru Mansion. ptoi No 20 zt zq zi, tnaii N-r6; i;;hi#ivii"'danqa neooy Distnct. Hyderabad. M/s. NEXT GEN, Reoresentert by its partner, Sri pasham Amarnalh Reddy, 9/o Vijaya Shekhar Reddy, aoe!'abour sSyil, Ocl E-urln"rr, Om"" Konduru Mansion. ptot ruo.zo" zt, zq. zi, iidir, i#r,iuowti, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. "nr:r6ri "t ...RESPONDENT Nos. 2 & 3 / JDRs lA NO: 1 OF 2025. Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit fited in support of the^ petition, inJ iigh Cor.t ,uV be pteased lo stay ail furthe{ proceedings in Ep No.2ilz ot 2023 .ninu riru tr tnl c.lri oiprii"iprl Junior civir Judge-cum-Vr. Additionar .rudiciar of First crass, Kukatpally, pending disposal of the CRp. -Magiskate Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Gounsel for the Respondent : SRI B MAYUR REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL NEPNiSCTTIT'TG SRI V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVI SION PETITION NO: 107 2 0F 2025 Petition Under Article 227 ol the Constitution of lndia against the.order aatea zi-oi-i025 in E.A.No'io of 2025 and E'A'No'16 of 2025 in E'A'No'107 ;;;;l;LF.No'zzs ot zozs on the file of the court of the Principal Junior urr noaitionur Judiciat Masistrate of First class, Kukatpallv ;1;ij;j;;:;;- Between: Dama Venkat Rao, S/o Dama china Kondaiah, Aged aborrl 38 vears' occupation' Business, Residing at proi j.lo.'- )i,'"i{. 'zql- i5, lndiran'aga|., Gachibowli, SEiiii?""priiv, Raiga Reddv District' Telansana t, ...PETITIONER/ Claim Petitioner AND 1 2 J 4 SriKabdiDilipKumarJain,s/oSriJeetmalJain,Age43yrs.occ'Business Sri Kabdi Praveen Kumar . Jain, S/o Sri Jeetmal Jain'- Aqe 43yrs' Occ' Business. Both are tn" r.sroJnii oi o No tt-zota.1st.Floor' Phoolabhavi 3iai, V;k;iirl7ari' cnowt, Vii'vu*ua' Krishna District' Andhra Pradesh *edP6ndent No 1/DHR Ir//s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri Krishna Reddy' S/o Rohith [:Is,'.ffi 1"",,frg;[,',',"$.T;f il;i,.:ru#'a;*31ffi fr ]a?[?i'ilKonduru District, HYderabad. M/s. NEXT GEN, Represented bv its Partner' Sri Pasham Amarnath Reddy' i)" vilrw si."rhar ieddy' agld'about 39yrs' Occ Business' office at xJ"iifii"rr,tIn;i;"I prbi N6.zo17 . zq, zs' indira Nasar' Gachibowli' Ransa Reddy District, HYderabad' ...RESPONDENT Nos' 2 & 3 / JDRs IA NO: 10F 2025 PetitionunderSectionl5lcPcprayingthatinthecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in EP No'279 Of 2023 on the file of the CourtofPrincipalJuniorCivilJudge-Cum-VlllAdditionalJudicialMagistrate Of First Class, Kukatpally, pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. KONDAPARTHY KTRAN KUMAR counsel forthe Respondent: sRI B. MAyuR REDDY, sENIoR coUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1074 0F 2025 Petition under Articre 227 0f the constitution of rndia against the order dated 22-01-2025 in E.A.No.04 of 2o2i rna e.nflo.ie or 202s in E.A.No.87 of 2024 in E'p.No.276 0f 2023 0n the fire or tn. court-"r the principar Junior civil Judge -cum- V*r Additionar Judiciar rurrgi.irr;i rir"t cru=i,-rirruip'.rii' Between: Dama Venkat Rao. S/o Dama China Kondaiah, Aged about.3B years, Occupalion -rl, ' ;i:"is]"'ino,r.rnrgu r, Gachibowri, Business, . Residins al ptot _No. Zo. Serrtrngampally. Ranga Reddy District, Telanqar" ' --' AND ...PETITIONERy Claim petitioner Koduru Kavya, D/o Sri pitcheswara Rao, Age 34yrs, Occ. Housewite, R/o. IliJ#: J:jdjjll corony. crisrura1,p,r-".,Vi,rliuiio"J, rir.i=rrna oi.t,;"t, fvl/s. NEXT GEN. Reoresented by its-partner, Sri Krishna Reddy, S/o Rohith ['*s;[iiJdfr'""i.i%1,;?t:i:.i?lirt*:,t:"xffi ,?Fdifl x.Jsjl;; fu1/s. NEXT GEN. Reoresenteri by its partner, Sri pasham Amarnal\ Reddv, S/o Vijaya Shekhar Reddy, aoe{r'abortJiiy-r.', -Oc.."drlinJ., Konduru tv,tansion. ptot r,ro zo" zt , zq, zs, indti,Jir:"&r, Cli'n,o.wri, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. Omi.u ut 1 2 3 4 lA NO: 1 OF 202s ..,RESPONDENT Nos. 2 & 3 / JDRs Petition under Section,1.5.1 CpC prayrng that in the ctrcumstances stated in *ay be pteased to stav "trl"";J,i;o;;;;"];r1 of First crass, the.affidavit fited in support of.the-petition, i;""Fiigh ;;; att further proceedinss in Ep No.276 or 2023.""in" tiG'"i Junior civir Judse-cum-V, Additionar Jrdi"i;i Kukatpally, pending disposal of the CRp Counsel for the petitionen SRl. KONDApARTHY KIRAN KUMAR COUNSEI fOr thE RESPONdENT : SRI B. MAYUR REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL -M;;;rrate REPRESENTING SRI V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SAruEXN . CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1075 0F 2025 Petition Under Article 227 ol lhe Constitution of lndia against the order dated 22-01-2025 in E'A'No'? oI 2025 and E'A'No'13 ot 2025 in E'A'No'87 i" e.p.No. 276 0f zozt on the fite of the court of the Principal Junior ;'"iiJ;i;";;r- vlrr aaaiii"nal Judicial Masistrate of First class' Kukatpallv "i)?i Between: Dama Venkat Rao, S/o Dama China Kondaiah' Aged aboul 38 vears' Occupation' "i{, 'zqi 25, lndiran'aga|., Gachibowli, Business. Residing ., ,,oi xo - )d, 5;ii ;"q;eait, Raisa Reddv District' relansana ...PETITIONERY Claim Petitioner AND (: 1 2 3 ' Respohdent No'1 / DHR Koduru Kavya, D/o Sri Pitcheswara Rao' Age 34 yrs''.Occ. Housewife' R/o e[i'i'r..i oslFir; colonv, crisiuiaiapur-am'irijava-w?l^ !', Krishna District' Andhra Pradesh lr.4/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri Krishna Reddy' S/o Rohith iil-;;:E#;Ab"J'ruort :s v"L,.i, ocCupation Business' oriice at Konduru i)"r'"Jtil, pi"i N.I io' T, zq. zi, rnoi|-i Nailar' Gachibowli' Ransa Reddv District, HYderabad. M/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri Pasham Amarnath Reddy' iii viilr)'srcr.liai tieodv, aged'about 39vrs' occ Business' office at i;^j,jr,i-trl;;;ion, prot 116.zolZ , zq, zs, lndira Na.s-al'. G-a.chibowli' Ranqa H:ili'6rli.iiTivo"r"o'a'-'-' "'nesPoN-DENrNos'2&3/JDrs lA NO: 1 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in -t!a HiS.l Court mav be pleased to stay the affidavit filed in support of the petition' ,i'"rrriir?'i""*Jing" in rp r'io'z7o or 2023 on1h" s" of the court of Principal lragelcum-vlll Aaaitionat Judicial Magistrate of First Class' ir".r kufatpatty, pending disposal of the CRP' 'tlJii- Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR counsel for the Respondent: sRl B' MAYUR REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL ndpn-iseurruc sRl v's'R'M'v' PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVISION PETI TION NO: 1076 0F 202s Petition under Articre 227 0f the constitution of lndia against the order dated 22-01-2025 in E.A.No.03 of 2025 unU e.n.flo.iS of ZOZS in E.A.No.75 ot 2024 in E.p.No.278 ot 2023 on the fite of th" C;;;-"f the principat Junior civil Judge -cum- v* Additionar Judiciar rr,'agistrrdi ri..t crari,-rirtuif,aii!' Between: Dama Venkat Rao. S/o Dama China Kondaiah, Aged about.38 years, Occupation - zd, ztl "2q," "z'sl"iro,rrn"g, r, Gachibowti, Business, Residino at ptot Serilingampatty, RaigaReddyDistrict,Jelaigbnr-.-''"'' No ^ AND 2 3 ...pETlTlONEFy Claim petitioner Uma Arza, Wo Srinivas Arza,Aged^about 42 years. Occupalion Employee, Residinq at Flat No.G1 Ko*r:u Residen"y ' Vi.[ nrlr"rro na n Rao Street, !g!!ioet. Vijayawada, xrisnha. oistrici, n"Jiiij p#L"ri'fresenuy Residino ar 37ss, cardenia Avenue wesron,l ri,irio", usa'Rli''ov i.,]; ci;i,ni,ii"i-,=s1i Sankabarhuta Rama Rao slo 'Latu VEi][#in*l?rr",, iged abour 75vrs occRtd Fmprovee. R/o Ftar ruo ci xoouru*R;il;;;i ?i.;;r;;;;r;"d;"; Street Labbipei vijayawada, xrisrrna ois'iici ;il;'; FI;,i;'hi:'+,"Bll1hX"X: 2 1 ? 4.' 2s, Ir4/s. NEXT GEN. Reoresented by its partner, Sri Krishna Reddy, S/o Rohith Kumar Reddy. Aqed bbour :s yeirs, O"crpation arsin".l om"u ar Konduru y3 []il|", ; 3,!"]ir2o, ;i,;01 y M/s. NEXT GEN. Reoresenterl by its partner, Sri pasham Amarnath Reddv. S/o Vijaya Shekhar Reddy, aqe^d'abortlbvil, "cj"" "ersi.n"S, t{6 zo] 21, i4' is' iili;;'J",ili"c:J&ioo*"ri n,ns, [3!li'3 Y.'ii ?lh?rot ]i'n:il*r i n ; -i"J ;;- [ra; ; om"" ,t "qi' ,G lA NO: I OF 2025 ...RESPONDENT Ncs. 2 & 3 / JDRs Petition under Section -151 CpC praying that in the ctrcumstances stated in the.affidavit fited in support of the^petition, if.,J iigh Coui n,ry be pleased to stav allfurther proceedinss in Ep No-278 ot ioiz ";il" fit;;iil;;Uffi#;;"i? Junior Civil Judse-Cum-V,t- Ad lianat Jrd;"i;i Of First Ctass, Kukatpally, pending disposat of the CRp ",;;;rrate Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. KONDApARTHY KIRAN KUMAR counsel forthe Respondent_:_sRr B. MAyuR REDDY, sENroR couNSEL REPRESENTTNG SRr V.S.R.M.V. pAaSaO Snr{are CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1077 0F 2025 Petition Under Article 227 ot the Constitution of lndia against the order out.u'zi_oi_iois in E.n.uo.o1c,t 2025 and E.A.No.11 0f 2025 in E.A.No. 83 .i),rza i, e.p.No.274 of 2023 on the file of the court of the Principal Junior ;;"iil;d" _;m- Vil Addirionat Judicial Magistrate of First class, Kukatpally Between: Dama Venkat Rao, S/o Dama China Kondaiah, Aged about 38 years' Occup-ation - 20, 21 , 24: 25, lndiranagar, Gachibowli, EL.iJin.q ut proi r'ro. HJ=i'^LJ.. Seniingirpatty, Raiga Reddy District' Telangana ' .PETITIONER/ Claim Petitioner AND L 1 Kum. Bandi Rupa Lavanya, D/o Bandi Koti Reddy' Aged about 22 Ye{1' A"#r;ii; Eripr.vlu, (esiJng h Panchavathi hpartments' opp JNTU' F:;"'Jtfii"t'[q;;:'it*v6",lu"o-, Ha"o-.n'r - Malkaj-giri Districl Presentlv Residins -t ;1n, ,ti welleslev streei.-East Toronto 6N, tvl4x1G5, Canada Rep' by f,:fiii ntl;;E.t"iin"oav, S/o Late Gangi Reddv' Aged about 70 Years' b',l""RAi E;;i";;;,-Fv" Flrf i'ro oaoq, Pandhavathi Apartments opp JNTU' il;,h"i"G;;,'fvi"ruro, Medchal - tvlalkajgiri District Responden[ *- 2 J fvl/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri Krishna Reddy' S/o Rohith iiffi ;;I;iv;A'seo Loout 3s-velrs, Occupation Business' office at Konduru i')""'"iiti , Fli,i'r.r;: io, zt, za, 2b, tndira Nasar, Gachibowli' Ransa Reddv District, HYderabad. M/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri Palham Amarnath Reddy' iiii villrl'snEknar Reddv, ased'about 39vrs' occ Business' office at #.j'l;j-lv;;;i;n, prbl r'16 zol 21.24,25, indira Nagar' Gachibowli' Ransa Reddy District, HYderabad' ...RESPONDENT Nos. 2 & 3 / JDRs 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' tlre Uig! Co.urt may be pleased to stay ,iitrttn. pt"".edings in EP No'274 Ot 2023 on the file of the Court Of Principal ir"ri'ii''lii-lroselCum-Vtll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Kukatpally, pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitiorier: SRI' KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : SRI B' MAYUR REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL nipReseNrNc sRl v's'R'M'v' PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVI SION P ETITION NO 10.78 0F 202s Petition Under Articre 227 0f the constitution of rndia against the order dated 22-01-2025 in E.A.No.O8 ot 2O2S and S.a.No.iA of 2OZS in E.A.No.103 ot 2024 in E P'No'281 of 2o23 on the fire of the court of the principai ir"i.. civil Judge -cum- vil Additionar Judiciar Magistrate oi ri.st cra=s, riuraiJair-v' Between: Dama Venkat Rao, S/o Dama China Kondaiah, Aged about.3g years, Occupation Business, Residinq at ptot^No. ii,' x. 'z+,"")sl"ino,runrg"r, Seri'ingampally Raiga Reddy District,-elanganr- " -"' " Gachibowli, AND ...pETtTtONEFy Claim petitioner

1. Koduru Sunesh, S/o K. pitcheswara Rao- Age 37 yrs, Occ. Business, R/o plot No.105, Film Colony, Crisurajapuram, Vrjay-awadJ, (risnna District, Ap. .. 2 M/s. NEXT GEN, Reoresented by its partner, Sri Krishna Reddy, S/o Rohith Kumar Reddv. Aoeo ahou^t 35- y.bri, Oi"rpution,'tirl,n".r, Office at Konduru Mansion, proi No:20. zt. zq, zls, rnaiu;-rrl-16;'eic"n.i;owtr, Ransa Reddy Drstrrct Hyderabad RespondentLNo.l / DHR

3. Nil/s. NLXI GEN. Reoresented by its partner, Sri pasham Antarnath Reddv. S/o Vilaya Shekhar Reooy, aged'aboriaiilir'", -oti Kondur_u l.4ansion, pro,.ro 2oI zt . za. zi, Gair;G;;;, Gachibowti, Ranoa Reddy Disrricr, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENi No;. 2 & d ,;DHs e'.;siness, Office ar - IANO:1OF 2025 Petition under Section _151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the.affidavit filed in support of.the^petition, [f,""High Court mry be pleased to stay all further oroceedings in Ep No.281 of 2oz3 on"tre iiL or tri" c,]riio-r pri""i"?r Junior civit Judse-cum-V* ndo{g1ar .ruorciat r'rasisir]i" oi''rirri UIr!3] Kukatpally, pending disposal of the CRp Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : SRI B. MAYURREDDY,SENIORCOUNSEL . REPRESENTING SRI V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVI SION PETITI ONNO: 1O79 OF 2025 PetitionUnderArticle22ToftheConstitutionoflndiaagainsttheorder aateA'zi-di-ioii in e.n.uo.o5 ot 2025 and E'A'No'14 of 2025 in E'A'No'e1 e.p.io.Z77 of 2023 on the fite of the Court of the Principal Junior ;:v:ij;dse:;u;-.vrI additionat Judiciat Masistrare of First class, Kukatpallv "i)d'Zal" Between: Dama venkat Rao, s/o Dama china Kondaiah, Aged- about 38 vears, occupation- -if' '24: 25' lndiran'agar' Gachibowli' R,qiness Residinq at proi ltro 5"riii"o'rrpriiv, Raiga Reddv District' Telangana " ii' ...PETlTlONERi Claim Petitioner AND 2 1 Mr. Lakshmi Srinivas Sankabathula;rrS/o Sankabathula Rama Rao' aqe 42yrs' ii;": s;it*r; Engin""t, nlo- t +s++ Pepper Pike Place' Parker Co' 80 134 H; ;;"i;; cpl uota.r, sri sankabathula Rama Rao s/o Late SEXtriJ"r,*rrrrlngeo iuout z-ovrs, occ- Rtd Emplove-e' Fl/o flat.NoFl' iil;, H;;;;;n"v] ru"ur. WR'Hospital' Labbipet' Vijavawada' Krishna District, AP lr,ills. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri Krishna Redd-y' S/o Rohith iifi;;H;d- A'seJ-auout 35 G'ars, occupation- Business' oflice aI Konduru il"Jffi;;. Pilt'N;:io.*,zq' 26, inoira Nasar' Gachibowli' Ransa Reddv District, HYderabad. M/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri Pa:ham Amarnath Reddv' l'""m;'r:lSlll},:'.nl''ll,tn,",1:[:!3lf :;3"-";f'Y:3:H1ffi :€:"n' Reddy District, HYderabad' ResPondent Nc"1 / DHR ...RESPONDENT Nos' 2 & 3 / JDRs IANO:1O F 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that ln the circumstances stated in tne affiOauit fiteO in support of the petition' i19 Uigl Court may be pleased- to stay liirrii?'pr""..Oing. in rp U..Z7z Of 2023 on tte file of the Court Of Principal JuniorCivilJudge-Cum.VlllAdditionalJudicialtvlagistrateofFirstClass, kutatpatty, pending disposal of the CRP Counsel ior the Petitioner: SRI' KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B' MAYUR REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL REPAESCUNUC SRI V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVI SION PETITION NO: 1 080 0F 2025 Petition Under Articre 227 0f the constitution of rndia against the order dated 22-01-2025 in E.A.No.O9 of 2O2S and E.A.N;.i; of 2O2S in E.A.No.111 ol 2024 in E.P.No.280 ot 2o23 on the file of tfre Court of the princflai ir"i". Civil Judge -cum- V,t Additionat Judiciat ft agistrate;i First CIrs;,-ilai;;t't; Between: Dama Venkat Rao, S/o Dama China Kondaiah. Aged about 3g years, Occuoation. Business, Residino ar ptor_No zo, -it. ii]"is."jiiiiJ.,"gri' 6l""iyfJ,iii Serilingam patty. Ranga Reddy District,TelaigLnu-. -' '"' " AND ...PET|T|ONERy Ctaim petitioner Mr.D.Jaya Prakash. S/o Sri D. Ranga.Chary, Age 5Z yrs, Occ. Business, R/o H.No B t-6/1, Atmasguda, nanga n-;aJy Distiitj, fvo'",ioli" C:ilflf tu1/s. NEIXT GEN, Represented by its partner, Sri Krishna Reddy, S/o Rohith Kuma. Reddy, Aged about 35 ye-a rs O""rp.tion. arlinJr.lofii." at Konduru l\rlansion. ptor No.zO, 21. ?4 ?5. tnOirj N-ada r' Oa."ni6"uiil, nanga nua,Jy District, Hyderabad. IV/s. NEXT GEN. Reoresenred by.its.partner, Sri pasham Amarnath Reddy, S/o Viiaya Shekhar ' Redrtv 3gi6 ^a-b"_ul asii;, o1l " arsn."", office ar Konduru t\,4ansion plot No'i0, ,1 , i,-;;, i,i,ii,i r,r1g""r,"6achibowti, Ranga Reddy Drstrict, Hyderabad. 2 3 lA NO: 1 OF 202 5 ...RESPONDENT Nos. 2 & 3 / JDRs _.15.1 Petitioo under Section CpC praying that in the circumstances statecl in the.affidavit frled in support of the petition, [f,""Uigf, C";ri;;;;;;l;;;;r";J:ir; all further proceedinss in Ep No_280 of 2023 ori,,,"ir"-.tii" a;;;ioh;;"r;"1 Junior Civit Judge-Cum-VU l Of First Ctass, . fddl,:lal .tuOiciat Kukatpally, pending disposal of the CRp Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. KONDApARTHY KIRAN KUMAR counsei for the Responcient : SRi B. MAyr.iR REDDY, sENioR couNSEL -[,lagistrate REPRESENTING SRI V.S.R.M.V, PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1085 0F 2025 Petition Under Afiicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the-order uut"u ii-o'i-l'oii in r.e.No'os of 2o2s and E'A'No'17 or 2o25 in E'A'No'111 fite of the Gourt of the Principal Junior vrrr aaaitionui Judicial Masistrate of First class' Kukatpallv "i)d'zi']" ;:;ij;d;e:;;- L-p.lro.zao ot zoii ""the Between: Dama Venkat Rao, S/o Dama China Kondaiah' Aged aboul 38 vears' Occupation' Business, Residing ,, *'oi j"l; " lndiran'agar' Gachibowli' 5;ii;s;eait' Raisa Reddv District' relansana 'b'';' '5' '24:- ...PETITIONEPJ Claim Petitioner AND 1 2 3 Ivlr.D.JayaPrakash,S/oSriD.RangaChary,Age.5Tyrs,,occ.BUSineSs,Ryo ii.r.r""-s:i-oir, Almasguda, Ransa Rtauv Distric-t' Hvo'erab'o ft:t?B?-rofi"' fril/s. NEXT GEN. Represented bv its Partner' Sri Krishna Reddy' S/o Rohith t(rrmar Recldv. Aqed about us'G'ari' Oicupation Business' Office at Konduru il'"';';;Ii?[i il;: i6,1 i, ii, 26. t,oi ra u a!ar' Gach i bowri' Ra nea R eddv District, HYderabad. M/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri P-asham Amarnath Reddy' ai*n'm[:s:i#-*i;,:zi:;:,*',:#'d*o,E,,u3:iffi :-8iffj Reddy District, HYderabad' ...RESPONDENT Nos. 2 & 3 / JDRs IA NO: 'to F 2025 ' Petition under Section 151 CPC praying .that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of tne petitibn' itrJ Higf' Co"t may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in ep ilo z5O of 2023 on1h"-filt of the Court Of Principal ROaition"t Judicial Magistrate Of First Class, jr".r''"Ciiii- lrOge-'Cum_VW Xutatpaf f y, pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' KONDAPARTHY KTRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent: SRI B' MAYURREDDY' SENIORCOUNSEL n'dpn'dbEurrr'rc sRl v's'R'M'v' PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVlsto N PETITION NO: 10 86 0F 202s Petition Under Articre 227 0f the Gonstitution of rndia against the order dated 22-O1-2025 in E.ANo.06 of 2025 una i.a.f,fr.iO of 2025 in E.A.No.95 of 2024 in E.p.No'283 of 202g on the fire of trc c"".t-"r the principar Junior Civit Judge -cum- vlt Additionat .ludiciii r,argi"t.r;;i riot ct"";:-ffi"i;;ti;, Between Dama Venkat Rao. S/o Dama China Kondaiah. Aged about.3g years, Occupation_ _ No. zo, -il.' iii"isl"ji.,o,run"srr, Gachibowti. Business, Resjdino al ptor Serilingampa y. Raiga Reddy Districi,Jelaioanr-. " '"' " AND ...PETITIONEFy Ctaim petitioner

1. Mr. Kolarupaka Jaoadeeshwar Rao, S/o K.V.Krishna Rao, Age 61yrs, Occ_ Retired, R/o H. No. i-49l2. f raoath-t tagai, N"ri'iuniu rio.pirrr, Chaitanyapuri, Hyderabad.' n"""p"ra"iT'rv-"'libijn Y€ ii", J?,.'J ;i:ile Kumar Reddy, Aqed about 2 t\ills NEj(T.GEN, Represented by its pa(ner, Sri Krishna Reddy, S/o Rohith .35- y"gr"., Oc"rp.tion gr".inEss. Ottice at Konduru J;riJ'iri' ni.s;Fiil;' " "' " 20 21' 2 4' 25 i;;i ; N;i;' "i' 3. M/s. NEXI GEN. Reoresented by its parlner, Sri pasham Amarnath Reddv, S/o Vijaya Shekhar Reddy, Ko n d u ru Ma n s ion, ptor N6' 20: r . ii, zj,- jriciliil"r#i] hr.ni uo*t i, Ranoa Reddy District, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENT No. 2 & 3 / JDRs - 1ge^d'about 39yi;, o.;_';;;i;".s, of{rce ar lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section..l.S1 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the.atfidavit fired in support of.the^petition, ir,""*igr, iouii,nuv be preased to stav all fu(her o-roceedings in Ep No.283 ot io23 ii['.r i(" dr;io; p;;.];r1 -oi 'F;ri ,ilS, Junior Civit Judse- Cum_ Vlt A ditionat J;i";;i rr,lrgi"ir.i" Kukatpally, pending disposal of the CRp Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. KONDAPARTHY KTRAN KUMAR counsel for the Respondent : sRr B. MAyuR REDDY, sENroR couNsEL ""-ir," REPRESENTING SRI V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA GIVIL REVISION PETITION N O: 1Oa7 OF 2O25 Petition.Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the aut"a zLoi-io25 in E'A.Non7 of 2025 and E'A'No"l9 oI 2o25 in E'A'No'99 z?+ l" ep.No.282 of zoim on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior vlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class' Kukatpallv "i ;:':ij;j;;l;;;- -or'ler Between: Er,,ainAqq Residino at Ploi j\;'',b, -n; '24: 25' lndiran-agar' Gachibowli' Dama Venkat Rao, S/o Dama China Kondaiah, Aged 5"riii"g#prtly' Raiga Reddy District' Telangana' 38 vears, occupation, -about ...PETITIONER/ Claim Petitioner AND ,Jl 1 2 3 Smt. Koduru Rajini' Wo K',Pitcheswara Rao Age 57 yrs'.Occ' Housewife' R/o Eili N;.iob; rii, cotonv, cri'uia;ipJ"m' Vijafawad-a' Krishna District' AP tvl/s. NEXT GEN, Represented by its Partner' Sri Krishna Reddy' S/o Rohith t'eLrs' occupation Business' office at Konduru iil"#H;;;;ibLJ'"0"'t ilffi;,"n6i'N":io' zt ' zq' zi;, inoi'a Na!ar' Gachibowli' Ransa Reddv District, HYderabad- tr//s. NEXT GEN, Represented bv its Partner' Sri Pasham Amarnath Reddy' lilylrtu,:lsl*:'*:'sl,tn,",1:B3l!3lil{}3i,";i,1133'"?;'flT,ilfi 5"n, Reddy District, HYderabad' 'u ...RESPONDENT No. 2 & 3 / JDRs IA NO: 10F 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, irrJHign court may be pleased to stay ,ilrJriirr''r""*oi"gd i" ep N" 2'82 of 2023 on th" filt of the Court of Principal lrogelCum-Vlll ndditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' ir"-r ""CJri- kutatpatty, pending disposal of the CRP' Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent : SRI B' MAYUR REDDY' SENIOR COUNSEL NE.PNiSTUTTUE SRI V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA CIVIL REVISIONPETITION NO: 1089 0F 202s Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the order . dated 22-O1-2025 in E.A.No.1O of 2025 and e.a.No.iO ot 2O2S in E.A.No.107 or 2024 in E'p'No.279 0f 2023 0n the fire of *re court of the principar Junior civil Judge -cum- vilr Additionar Judiciar Magistr;te oi ei..t cr""i,-rir*uiJ"r'ri' Between: Dama Venkat Rao, S/o Dama China Kondaiah, Aged abour 3g years, Occuoation. Business, Residino ar ptnr 6""'.i,yfJiii. Seri|ingampa|ly,RangaReddyDi.t,ictJ.taiqa,a. _ No 20, -;f, ';i:"is,"'liliiJ^,rg.,., AND ? 3 4 ...pETtTtONERy CIaim petitioner Sri Kabdi Dilip Kumar Jain, S/o SriJeetmal Jain, Age 43 yrs, Occ. Business Both are the residents or d ruo r t-z-otd itr""i,"pn1"rl"uilu'ri st,.ut, vinakotra Van Chowk, Vijayawada, Xrisnna OLirtci n;jijr; p-r.;;l;f ' Sri .Kabdi Praveen Kumar Jain, S/o Sri Jeetmal Ja Business Both are the residenis of o.r.rJ jj:io'ie. " S treet, Vi na kotta Van Chowk, V,l iya*"Ar, f<i,rfrn-""fj L tri in, Age I Floor, ct, Andhra Pradesh 43yrs, O'cc. Phoolabhavt Respondent No 1/ DHR Itil/s. NEXT GEN. ReoresenterJ by its partner, Sri Krishna Reddy, S/o Rohith Kumar Reddy, Aqed about 35 ye-.ars., Occupjtion. auiinJ"r, om"" at Konduru [Iansion ptor No.20 21 24 ?'s. i;;ir;N;-,irr"i;.'n]Bo,.iri,"nrngu nuoav District, Hyderabad. Mis. NEXT GEN. Reoresenteri by its partner, Sri pasham Amarnath Reddv. S/o Vijaya Shekhar Reddy, ase-d'apout ag,i.', Oc" l(onduru Mansion. ptot No.20' zt, zq, zs,i"Zir;"r.l"&i, iE"'r,r,0"*ri, Ranga Reddy District, Hyderabad. "A;JinSs, Office at IANO:1OF2 02s ...RESPONDENT Nos. 2 & 3/ JDRs Petition under section f 51 cpc praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in supporr ol lh"^l9t,Igt, ir.l" ftign Courr .uV be pteased ro sray all further proceedings in Ep No.27g of 2023 onit. rir" o, the court of principar -naagi-strate of First crass, Junior civir Judge-cum-v* Additronar .ruoiciai Kukatpaily, penclirrg disposai ot the CRp - Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. KONDApARTHY KTRAN KUMAR counsel for the Respondent : SRr B. MAyuRREDDY,sENroRcouNSEL REPRESENTING SRt V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD Snr.fafa The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: THE HONOURAB LES RI JUSTICE P. SAM KO SHY Civil Revislon Petition No s.1055 t062 1063 1065 1066 1069. 1072.l0 74.lo7s. 1076 .1 077, I078. 1 and 1089 of202s 1067 1068 079, I080, 1085, I086. 1087 COMMoNoRDER: Since the issue involved in this batch of Revisions is one and the same, they are taken up for analogous hearing and are being decided by this Common Order 't Heard Mr. Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar' leamed counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B. Mayur Reddy, leamed Senior counsel, representing Mr. V'S'R'M'V' Prasad Sanaka' leamed counsel for the respondents For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition No'1055 are 3 discussed hereunder'

4. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of rheConstitution of India assailing the common order dated 22.01.2025, in E'A'No '06 af 2025 and E'A'No'20 of 2025 in I Page 2 of9 E.A.No.95 of 2024 in E.p.No.283 of 2\23,passed by the principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-VIII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally.

5. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court has rejected the petitions filed by the petitioners under order XW Rule 14 read,with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, .CpC,) seeking for reopening the evidence of the claim petitioners and for summoning the JDR No.3 as a Court witness

6. The facts of the case are that the originar suit o.s.No.so 5 0f 2023 (Old O.S.No.674 of 2OZl) was filed by the respondent No.l herein seeking eviction of Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein from the suit schedule property, along with recovery of arrears of rent towards damages. The Trial Court, vide its judgment dated 07.1 1.2023, directed Respondents Nos.2 and 3 to vacate the property and to pay the arrears of rent. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed an E.A.No.06 of 2025 n E'A'No.95 of 2025 i n E.p.No.2g3 of 2023 to reopen the evidence of the respondent No.l and to summon JDR No.3 (p. Amamath Reddy) as Court witness. However, the Trial Court passed an jmpugned order dated Page 3 of9 ., .+rn 4** , :{ifa.t {r

22.01.2025, dismissing the said application' Aggrieved' the petitioner herein has filed present Civil Revision Petition to set aside the same' 7 . Leamed counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court in O.S.No.505 of 2023 acknowledged that the premises had been sublet to a third party and failed to identiff the specific sublessee or frame a conclusive issue on these material facts' The Trial Court erroneously and without jurisdiction recorded that the sub-tenancy issue had been conclusively adjudicated in the main suit, thereby misconstruing the judicial findings and perpetrating a grave miscarriage of justice by athibuting the sub-tenancy to the claim petitioner / respondent No'l without sufficient evidence-

8. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the Trial Court had fundamentally erred in determining that an oral lease existed exclusively between the claim petitioner and the Decree Holder Respondent (DHR) and concluding that JDR No'3 had no nexus with the agreement. The Trial Court also overlooked the JDR's statement in the eviction suit suggesting that the property had been sublet making it imperative to summon the JDR to clariff the ambiguity sunounding the l Page 4 of9 subletting arrangement and by denying this opportunity, the Trial Court improperly shifted the burden of proof entirely onto the petitioner and compromised the principles of fair adjudication.

9. Lastly, the leamed counsel for the petitioner contended that the Trial Court's rejection of the application under Order XVI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC was contrary to law and denied the petitioner an opportunity to establish his tenancy claim. Further, the Trial Court erroneously held that a separate application under Order XVI Rule 14 read with Section 151 of CPC was required failing to recognize its inherent judicial discretion to summon witnesses necessary for a just decision of the case. This approach by the Trial Court undermines the pulpose of Order XVI Rule 14 of CpC and constitutes a material irregularity in the exercise ofjurisdiction.

10. Per contra, the leamed Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents categorically denied all the allegation made by the claim petitioner in toto and contended that the claim petitioner had already admitted in his cross-examination of issuing a legal notice in the year 2022 tbrough an Advocate K. Kaveri, wherein he explicitly claimed to Page 5 of9 |,'&4*aad-!*',l'.w,ta*'"i' be a subtenant of the petition schedule properlry' This admission directly contradicts his current position before the Triat Court and also undermines the ctedibility of his present claim regarding an oral lease agreement directly with the DHR' This inconsistency in the petitioner's statements reveals the frivolous nature of the current petition'

11. Secondly' the teamed Senior Counsel for the respondents contended that the Trial Court had already thoroughly resolved the dispute relating to sub-tenancy in the main suit itself' rendering the cunent application redundant and unnecessary' The leamed Senior Counsel further contended that there was no ambiguity to be clarified as claimed by the petitioner and that reopening evidence at this late stage would only serve to delay proceedings without adding any substantive value to the adjudication process' Additionatly' the leamed Senior Counsel for the respondent argued that the petition was filed at a shategically suspicious time' after the claim petitioner had votuntarily closed his evidence and when the matter was posGd for arguments' suggesting an attempt to circumvent established procedural norms' !2. Lastly, the leamed Senior Counsel for the respondents argued that Page 6 of9 asserted that the petitiofler had approached the court,"r.ith Lrnclean hands by deliberately suppressing material facts relevant to the case. The Senior Counsel for respondent contended that the petition was a calculated attempt to obstruct the execution of a lawfully obtained decree through procedural maneuvers rather than substantive legal arguments. It was further argued that summoning JDR No.3 would serve no legitimate judicial purpose as his statements were already on record, and the petitioner had failed to demonstrate how such testimony would be relevant to estabtishing his alleged oral lease with the DFIR which was the central issue in dispute.

13. Based on these grounds, the learned senior counser for the respondents requested the Court to dismiss the petition.

14. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, the question for considerati on is ,,whether petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in his petition filed under Order WI Rule 14 read with Section I5 t of CpC?. the claim

15. For ready reference, Order XVI Rule 14 of Civil procedure Code, 1908 is extracted hereunder' viz'' " 14' Court may of ils own accord summon as wilnesses strdngers lo suil - Subject to the provisions of this Code as to attendance arul appearance and to any law for the time being in force' where the CourtatanylimethinksilnecessarytoexamineanyPerson,includinga pqrty to the suit and not called as a witness by a party lo the suit' the Court may, oJ its own motion' cause such person to be summoned as a witness lo give evidence' or to produce any documenl in his possession' on a day to be appointed' and may examine him as a witness or require him to Produce such document'"

16. This Court finds that the claim petitioner had voiuntarily closed his evidence after frling his chief affrdavit and after examining himself' It was at the state of argument that he sought to reopen evidence, which is a procedural maneuver that appears to be a designed plan to delay proceedings rather than genuinely advancing his case' The Court cannot to reintroduce evidence, especially when permit such betated attempts sufficient oPPortunitY was previously afforded and deliberately relinquished by the claim petitioner 17. Another aspect which is noteworthy is that summoning of JDR as a Court witness under Order XVI Rule 14 of CPC unwaranted and woutd ?ssist in resolving the central issue' The claim No.3 IS Page 8 of9 petitioner's contentions revolves around an alleged oral lease agreement with the DHR not with the JDRs. JDR No.3,s statement regarding the sub-tenancy is already on record and his tenancy would not help establish the existence of a direct rease between the craim petitioner and DHR' The burden lies on the claim petitioner to prove the oral lease he asserts and this cannot be discharged by examining a third parfy who was not privy to the alleged agreement. lE. Another aspect which needs to be re_appreciated and considered is that the petitioner should not be and cannot be permitted to improve upon his case by bringing fresh facts, fresh defence and fresh stand contrary to the earlier stand that he has taken during the course of adjudication ofthe suit itserf. The preadings and the evidence which has come on record more particularly the issuance of the legal notice by the petitioner and the admission of the same in his cross-examination wourd by itself le'ad to contradictory new stand that the petitioner now intends to take and with which he intends to protract the proceeding which in other words would establish the fact that it has been done only with a mala fide intention of further lingering the proceedings. I I Page 9 of9

19. Furthermore, the claim petitioner's position is fundamentally contradicted by his own prior conduct. He previously issued a legal notice in the year 2022 tluortgh an Advocate K. Kaveri claiming to be a subtenant of the petition schedule property which is a fact admitted during cross-examination. This admission directly undermines his current assertion of a direct leasehold relationship with the DHR. The Court cannot tolerate such inconsistent positions especially when the petitioner approaches the Court with unclean hands by suppressing material facts relevant to his claim.

20. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition No.1055 of 2025 and batch being devoid of merits deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

21. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// / SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR se6$forrrcen

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge -cum- Vlll Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kukatpally , Ranga Reddy Dist.

2. One CC to SRl. KONDAPARTHY KIRAN KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. V.S.R.M.V. PRASAD SANAKA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies zk vpst- HIGH COURT DATED:251O712025 ,,<,:;('.v"t s' '' .,..<| 10sEPm D.: 9o,11g1rrC \::-:-::_ i C ..I COMMON ORDER CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 1055 1062 1063 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1072 1074 1075 '1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1085 1086 1087 and 1089 OF 2025 b 1/ 3 r DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1055 of 2025 BATCH WITHOUT COSTS