The High Court · 2025

...Respondents/Defendants CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION NO: 1 668 0F 2025 Petition under Articre 227 of the constitution of rndia aggrieved by the order dated 06-02-2025 passed in r.A.No.1385 of 2024 rN o.s rrrilzge ot dois on t. ' file of the court of the ilr Additionar chief Judge, city civit court, Hyoeraoro.- Between: Mohd Azeemuddin, s/o L-alg lrghd Faqruddini, aged about 55 years, occupation Business, R/o H.No. 1-4-B4Bt2, eakari;, MuJh"dr"'Oro, HvJurlOro., --"""".,. ...Petitioner AND 1 IVlohd Nayeemuddin, S/o Mohd Qamruddin, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.'l-7-92, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad Hyderabad. 2 Mir Taher Ali, S/o Late [\rl ir Nawab Ali, Aged about 44 years, Occupation Business, R/o H.No. 1-7-92, Zamislanpur, Musheerabad Hyderabad. 3. Mir Sadiq Ali, S/o Late Mir Nawab Ali, Aged about 42 years, Occupation Busrness, R/o H.No. 1-7-92, Zamistan p u r, Musheerabad Hyderabad. ... Respondents lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 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 grant stay of further proceedings in O.S. No.739 of 2013 on the file of lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad pending disposal of revision. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. lt/lohd Nayeemuddin, S/o Mohd Qamruddin, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.'1-7-92, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad Hyderabad. 2. Mir Taher Ali, S/o Late Mir Nawab Ali, Aged about 44 years, Occupation Business, R/o H.No. 1-7-92, Zamistanpur, lt/lusheerabad Hyderabad. 3. Mir Sadiq Ali, S/o Late Mir Nawab Ali, Aged about 42 years, Occupation Business, R/o H.No. 1-7-92, Zamistanpur, lt/lusheerabad Hyderabad. ...Petitioners/Respondents No.1 to 3 AND lvlohd Azeemuddin, S/o Late Mohd Faqruddini, aged about 55 years, Occupation Business, R/o H.No. 14-B4Bl2, Bakaram, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. ...RespondenURevision Petitioner Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bb pleased to vacate the stay order passed in lA No.1 of 2025 in CRP No 1668 of 2025 dated 02t05t2025. 9 Counsel for the Petitioners in both CRps : SRI S MOHD ABDUL KAREEM KHAN Counsel for the Respondents in both CRps : SRI VLADIMEER KHATOON The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER .a: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition Nos. 1607 & 1668 of 2025 COMMON ORDER : Since the issue in the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, and the parties thereto are also same, both the Revisions are being heard and decided by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr,S.Mohd. Abdul Kareem Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Revisions; and Mr.Vladimcer Khatoon, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3

3. Civil Revision Petition No.1607 of 2025 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 ol the Constitution of Indra assailing the ordcr dated 06.02.2025 in I.A.No.1384 of 2024 in O.S.No.739 of 20 13 passed by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad; and Civil Revision Petition No. 1668 ol 2025 is filed by the same petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated O6.02.2025 tn LA.No.1385 of 2024 in O.S.No.739 of 2013 passed by the III Additional ) PSK,] .rp 1607&r668 2025 Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, (for short, 'the impugned orders').

4. Vide th,e impugncd orders, the Trial Court dismissed the two appiications, viz., I.A.No.13B4 of 2024 in O.S.No.739 of 2013, a petition filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to reopen the case; and also I.A.No. 1385 of 2024 in O.S.No.739 of 2013, filed under Section 39(1) of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 praying the Trial Court to send trx.A.6 and Chief & Cross-examination to an hald-r,r,riting expert seeking his opinion u,hether the signature in Bx.A.6 is that of DW. i or not

5. Perusal of the record and also pleadings would go to show that the suit, viz., O.S.No.739 of 20 13, is one which was filed more than 12 years, i.e., in the year 2013. The respondents / defendants have entered appearance and filed Written Statement as early as on 23.04.2O14. In the Written Statement, the respondents / defendants have denied and disputed the signature over the alleged document Ex.A.6 and thereafter proceedings in the suit has reached the fag end and it is in the stage of linal arguments.. Meanwhile, the above two applications have crP-16o7&1668 -2o25 been filed b-r' the petitioner to reopen the case and to send Ex.A.6 and Chief & Cross-examination to an hand-writing expert seeking his opinion u'hether the signature in Ex A'6 is that of DW. 1 or not.

6. Given the fact that the respondents / defendants have also filed their Written Statement in the year 20 14 and they had also made a denial in respect of disputed signature on the aileged document Ex.A.6, this Court is of the firm view that the petitioner cannot be said to'be taking a surprise in respect of the denial made b1' the respondents / defendants in their cross-examination.

7. In vierv of the same, this Court is of tl-re firm vieu' that no strong case has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference to the impugned orders. The Civil Revision Petitions being devoid of merits, deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. No costs'

8. As a sequel, misceilaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closedl SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad One CC to SRI S MOHD ABDUL KAREEM KHAN, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI VLADIMEER KHATOON, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Copi 1 2 3 4 -}l q-r 1*f*'...x?iaaa - . - -- --.._--.a.||-r!xt --' HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 rHe S t'4 Ro r4 c)^ i) o i'),+ 19 AUE 2025 I I * o 1: -q r:t rr.lrFl COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.1607 and 1668 of 2025 DISMISSING THE BOTH CRPS WITHOUT COSTS D4-