The High Court · 2025

5. lndole Siddayya, (Died per LRs defendant Nos. 1 1 to 18) 6. Marepally Siddappa, S/o Late Laxmaiah, Aged about 72 years, Occ- Agriculture.

7. lndole Chandraiah, S/o Late Siddayya, Aged about 52 years, Occ- Agriculture,

8. lndole Narsimulu, S/o Late Siddayya, Aged about 53 years, occ- Agriculture. 9. lndole Manemma, Wo Late Siddayya, Aged about 65 Years, Occ- Agriculture,

10.lndole Narsimulu, S/o Late Srddayya, Aged about 53 Years, Occ- agriculture, 11.lndole Chandrappa, S/o Late Siddayya, Aged about 48 Years, Occ- agriculture,

12. Smt. Yellamma, S/o Late Siddayya, Aged about 43 years, occ- Household, .13. Smt. Bujjamma, D/o Late Siddayya, Aged about 40 Years, Occ- House Hold 14.Smt. Manjula, D/o Late Siddayya, Aged about 35 Years, Occ- Household.

15. Sml. Balamma, D/o Late Siddayya, Aged about 32 Years, Occ- Household, 't6- Smt. Chandramma, D/o Late Siddayya, Aged about 28 Years, Occ- Household IT.CHAKAL| LAKSHMI, Wo Mogulaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ- Household I IS.CHAKALl NAI?Slt\,4LU, S/o Late Pentaiah. Aged ab,rut 52 years, Occ- Agriculture,

19. CHAKALI ANJAPPA, S/o. Pentaiah, Aged about 52 yea's., Occ- Agriculture, 20.CHAKALI SHI\/APPA, S/o Pentaiah, Aged About 45 years, Occ- Agriculture, All are R/o Rornpalli village, Bantwaram mandal, Vikarabad Dist ...Petitioners AND

1. SMT. PASHA tlEGUlV @ FARUQ BEE, (Died per LRs/F'laintiff No.2 and 3) No Address

2. SMT SHAHAJ.ADI BEGUM, W/o Mahaboob Ali, Aged 60 years, Occ- Nil, R/o Chincholi, Gulberga District, Karnataka State

3. SMT. AJMEERI BEGUM, W/o Gali Salaniddin, Aged- 5li yrs, Occ- Household R/o. H No- Santhras Wadi. Gulberga District, Karnataka Sitate

4. MOHAMMED S;HAKEEL AHh/ED, S/o Mohammed Khara Monuddin Romi Aged 53 years Occ- Agriculture, H.No- 12-3-612, Zoherl'lagar Colony, Meer Alam Mandi, Hvd

5. MOHD. SHAFIIJDDIN, S/o IVlahabuddin Aged- 52 yearc, Occ- Agrigulture, H.No- 8- 1 -332l,1/8/90, Arvomd Colony, Lane No 21 , Azenz bagh, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. (Respondent No. 4 and 5 are not necessary Parties to this petition) ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petrtion under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the cirr:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may'lle pleased to STAY all further proceedings in O S NO 140 of 2005 on the file of the Sr. Civil Judge, Vikarabad, At- Vikaralrad. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. S Prabhakar Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : ... The Court made the following: ORDER ,ry HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY - CIVIL REVISI ON PETITON No.1633 of2024 ORDER: This Revision Petition is fi ted assailing the docket order, dated24.04.2024, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, in I.A.No.125 of 2024 in O.S'No.140 of 2005, whereunder the application filed under Section 151 CPC praying the Court to re-open the evidence of the defendants to adduce further evidence was dismissed

2. Heard Sri S.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants.

3. Notice sent to respondent No' I is served' As the notices sent to respondent Nos.2 and 3 were unseryed, pursuant to the orders of this Court, leamed counsel lor the revision petitioners served notice on leamed counsel appearing for respondent Nos'2 and 3 before the trial Court and filed a memo to that effect. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are stated to be not necessary parties to the Revision Petition. Despite service of notice on respondent Nos.l to 3, there is no representation on their behalf, therefore, this Court proceeded t to dhpose ofthe case basing on the material available on record. \ 2 LNA, J CRP.No.l633 of 2024

4. The brief factual matrix of the case is that r,:ripondent Nos.1 to 3 hled a suit in O.S.No.140 of 2005 before .:tte Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, against the revision petitionerli for declaration and recover./ of possession of the suit schedule propefty. The trial in the said:ruit was concluded and the matter was coming up for arguments and at that stage, the revision petitioners filed application in I.A.No. 125 of 2024 seeking to re-oper1 the matter for adducing f-uther evidence on their behalf .reg4rd to "vith Memorandum of Partition and Unregistered \\'ill deed, dated

19.01 .1973 . The trial Court considering the averments made by the defendants in their application as well the contentirtns raised by the plaintiffs in their counter and the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for both the parties, allowed the application, vide order dated 18.04.2024,, on payment of costs of Rs.500/- and with furthel condition that the defendants shall adduce further evidence on the next date of hearing by filing eviderLce affidavits of all the witnr:sses, failing which, the petition shall stand dismissed and posted the matter to 24.04.2024. I J LNA, J CRP-Nq.1633 o12024

5. On 24.04.2024, the costs were paid, however, since no evidence was adduced and conditional order dated 18.04.2024 was not complied with, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court, vide order dated 24.04.2024.

6. Leamed counsel for the revision petitioners contended that as per the docket proceedings dated 18.04.2024, I.A. is pending and the matter was posted to 24.04.2024. He further contended that the petitioners were not aware of allowing of the application on

18.04.2024 and the conditional order passed by the trial Court and as such, they were under impression that the application was pending and hence, they could not lead evidence on 24.04.2024, though the costs were paid. Leamed counsel further contended that examination of witnesses in respect of Memorandum of Partition and unregistered Will deed is crucial to substantiate the claim of the defendants before the trial Court and hence, he prayed to allow this Revision Petition by setting aside the impugned order.

7. A perusal of record would disclose that as per docket proceedings, dated 18.04.2024, I.A. was pending and the matter was posted to 24.04.2024 4 LNA' J CRP.No.l633 o12021 no orders were Pronounced

8. Learned oounsel for the petitioners specifically contended that even in the A_Dairy also, the same status was m:,tioned and on t8.04.2024 till 5 pm, ',hierefore, the petitioners were not aware of ailowing of the application and the conditionai order passed on 18'04'2024' In the c':nsidered opinion of this Court' there is some force g. in the contention of the learned counsel lor petitioners that the revision petitioners were not aware of passing of conditional order on 1g.04.2024 and hence, the same could not be ;,rmplied with. Further, the tlocket proceedings dated 18'04'2024 al:;o indicate the same.

10. In vit:w of the above' the triai Court nrlvtng I.A.No.125 0f 2O24,ought to have granted time t,: the defendants to lead evidence Therefore' the impugned order is liable to be set allowed I 1 . Accc'rdingly' this Revision Petition ls impugned order is set aside and l'A'No 12 5 of allowed and the is allowed' ':I24 are permitte<l to lead evidence The revisi'ln petitioners/defendants --/ / . ._-<---17 .i -jI 5 LNA, J CRP.No.l633 o! 2024 on such date as would be fixed by the trial Court, without seeking any further adj oumment.

12. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand clbsed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. L. LAKSHMI BABU ANT REGISTRAR A ECTION OFFICER I 2 The Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad One CC to Sri. S Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies J,% D , ,l t itr r riE S7.i' { / ii ) I -.)t o o(' f 17 APR M t RAIcHEO * HIGH COURT DATED:041O212O25