The High Court · 2025

1. Naguluri Sunitha, W/o. Late Sudheer Kumar, Age- 4'1 years, Occ- House Wife, (All R/o. H.No. 8-5-32134, Srinidhi Colony, Karmanghat Viltage. Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District)

2. Naguluri Sri.ia, D/o. Late Sudheer Kumar, Age- 23 years, Occ- Private Employee,

3. Naguluri Sai Lokesh, S/o. Late Sudheer Kumar, Age- 19 years, Occ- Student (All Rlo. H.No. B-5-32l34, Srinidhi Colony, Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District) ...PETITIONERS/ Defendants No. 1 to 3 AND

1. Smt. Asha Singhaniya, Wo. Sunil Singhaniya, / Aged about 47 years, Occ- Household, R/o. H.No. 16-11-2016/115, Saleem Nagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad.

2. Ashok Agarwal, S/o. Late Kirodimal Agarwal, Aged about 55 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No, 22-6-551, lvlandi Mir Alam, Hyderabad.

3. Koya Ramakrishna, S/o. Brahmanandam Rao, Aged about 36 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No. 6-2-37, Kanteshwar, Ward No. 1, Nizamabad Mandal, Nizamabad District. ",];;fiSno""tt,

4. Lakumala Venugopal, S/0. Lakumala Achaiah, Aged about 27 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No. 2-'10, Agapally Village, Manchal fVlandal, Ranga Reddy District ...RESPONDENTS/ D4 and D5 IANo: 1 0F 2019 Petition under Section J5 j CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support, of the p^etition in" ,ijr', court may be preased to stay 3ll.jyrthgr.qroceedings in the suit o s no464 ot'zoir on the fite'oritu corl'or XXVI Additionar chief Judge, city civir court, Hyaerabad, pending oirp*J?in. above C.R.P., lA NO:2 OF 2019 Petition under section 14g of rtw sec 15.r of cpc prayrng that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in suppoJ ot ftre petilioni iri i],sh"i"rrt may be pleased to extend the interim stay gran?JJ or-os-oz-zotg in cRp No..r152 of 2019 tilt disposal of the main CRp. lA NO:4 oF 2019 Petition under Section 148 rlw sec. .l5l of CpC praying that in the "c"r.t circumstances stated rn the,affrdavit fitea in support or ft," p"titioi, i"n"'Higt ma! be pteased to extend the interim .;t g;;;G; 3_z_201g in cRp No. 11s2 of 2019 till disposal of the main CRp Counsel for the petitioner: SRt. T. L. KRISHNA PRASAD ( Not present) Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 : SRI KISHORE RAI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 : None appeared CIVIL REVISION PETITION N O:'l 153 OF 2019 Petition Under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia against the order dated 18-03-2019 in r-A.No. 1362 0t zora ln-o.s.No. 463 0f 2011 0n the file of the Court of the XXVI Additional Ct i"f .f rOge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between:

1. Naguluri Sunitha Wlfe, W/o. Late Sudheer Kumar, Age_ 41 fears, Occ- House 2. Naguluri Sriia. D/o. Late Sudheer Kumar, Age_ 23 years, Occ_ private 3. Naguluri Sai Lokesh.. Sio. Late Sudheer Kumar, Age_ 19 years, Occ- Sl-in rcin i' coioi'v, X"l.,,"ndri.i' ilr |;i", Employee, S:Ys:ii,[:if o 5 ["* %s-airsa, ^fj: AND ...PET|TIONERS/ Defendants No. 1 to 3 I I I ( I '1. S.Ranjit Reddy, S/o. Raja Reddy Aged about45 years, Occ- Business R/o H.No. 6-2-'192, Subhash Nagar .. Respondent / Plaintiff

2. Koya Ramakrishna, S/o. Brahmanandam Rao, Aged about 36 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No.6-2-37, Kanteshwar, Ward No. 1, Nizamabad Mandal, Nizamabad District.

3. Lakumala Venugopal, S/o. Lakumala Achaiah, Aged about 27 years, Occ- Business, R/o. H.No. 2-'10, Agapally Village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...RESPONDENTS/ D4 and D5 lA NO: 1 OF 2019 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 the suit O.S.No.463 of 2011 on the file of the court of XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above C.R.P., and pass lA NO: 2 OF 2019 Petition under Section 148 of CPC r/w.SEC. 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To extend the interim stay granted on 03-07-2019 rn CRP No. 1 153 of 2019 till disposal of the main CRP. lA NO: 4 OF 2019 Petition under Section 148 R/w. Sec. 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim stay granted on 3-7-2019 in CRP No. 1 153 of 2019 till disposal of the main CRP. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI T. L. KRISHNA PRASAD ( not present) Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1 & 2: SRI KISHORE RAI Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 & 4: None appeared The Court made the following Common Order: { THE HONOLJRABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CIVIL RIi\ISION PETITION Nos.ll52 & 1153 of 2019 COMMON ORDI.-R: Civil Revision Petition No.l152 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2019 passed in I.A No. l363 of20l8 I t in O.S No.464 ol'201 I by the learned XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Civil Revision Petition No. I153 of 2019 is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated I8.03.2019 passed in I.A No.1362 of 2018 in O.S No.463 of 20ll by the leamed XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City I I Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. No repre'sentation by the learned counsel fbr the petitioners.

4. Leamcd counsel for the respondent Nos.l to 4 reported that the matter would become inlructuous as the suits were disposed of by the I l trial Court on rnerits

5. Hence, as the CRP's are posted under the caption for dismissal and the petitioner is not appearing before the Court and not evincing any interest to prosecute the matter, recording the submission of the leamed I I counsel for the respondents, these Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII Sd/. MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To '1 The XXV| Additionat Cli:|.{ygS_", City Civit Court, Hyderabad 2. one cc to sRt. r. L. KRTsHNA-pintXo]'ijr"rl"lil fopuct ,,3. One CC to SRt. KTSHORE RAt, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies kul/gh w I HIGH COURT DATED:1310212025 n COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.1152 & 1153 of 2019 --::=--.- 1r'c ST4 14- 24 npnm z !) * r..^J 3tl'ia o o \ * DISMISSING T}IIi I}OTH CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS AS INFRUCTUOIIS WITHOUT COSTS 6 hlt6