The High Court · 2021

1. Ramesh Chandra Soni, S/o Late Shri Satyanarayan Soni, aged 76 years, Occ. Business, R/o H.No.'15-2-148, Maharajgunj, Hlderabad. ...PETTTTONER(S) AND 1 2 3 4 5 Shri Satyanarayan Soni(Dead), , dead as per sole Lr Purshottamdas Soni (Dead), (dead as per Lr) Dist. Registrar, Red Hill, Nampally Mukunddas Soni, S/o Late Purshottamdas Soni aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, rlo. H. No.4-7-290, Easamia Bazar, Hyderabad-27. Smt Kamala Soni, w/o Late Shri Ghanshyamdas Soni aged about 55 years, Occ. Housewife rlo. H. No.4-7-290, Easamia Bazar, Hyderabad-27 .

6. Smt Priyanka Mundada, D/o Late Shri Ghanshyamdas Soni aged about 30 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. Plot No.305, flat No.201, Vakratund Apartments, Chikali layout Near east RTO office, Nagpur - 440 035.

7. Miss Payal Soni (Dead), (Dead as per Lr) B. Smt Nirmala Phafat, d/o Late Purshottamdas Soni aged about 56 years, Occ Housewife rto. H. No.4-7-290, Easamia Bazar, Hydirabad-27.

9. Smt Meena Damani, d/o Late Purshottamdas Soni aged about 50 years, Occ Housewife rlo. H. No.4-7-290, Easamia Bazar, Hyderabad-27 . fhe Respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 9 are not necessary parties to the present revtston. Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toto allow the present civil revision Petition thereby setting aside the impugned ...RESPONDENTS order dated 22 Oclober 2021, passed by the learned XX\ CCC, Hyderabad and restore status-quo ante as of the dat: passed in lA No. 25 of 2018 (lA No. 3a18 of 2010) in OS l' original file and direct the learned trial Court t), decir application within 4 weeks or such reasonable time as ot interest of justice. lN THE Alternate pass Addl Chief Judge, of the original order o.596 of 2010 to its e the interlocutory emed proper in the lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the r rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High CoLrr may be pleased to suspend the impugned docket orders daled 22 October 2021 passed in lA No. 25 of 2022 (lA No. 3418 of 201 0) in OS No. 596 of 2010 by tlt : learned XXV Addl. Chief Judge, CCC, At Hyderabad, pending disposal of the p nsent Civil Revision. lN THE Alternate and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. AADESH VARMA Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA cfVIL REVISION PETITION No.1843 of 2o.24 ORDER: Heard Sri. Aadesh Varma, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri. Ashish Kale, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record '

2. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred to set aside the impugned docket order dated 22.10.2021 passed in I.A. No. 25 of 20 1B (o1d I.A. No.34 18 of 20 1O) by the learned XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad'

3. The grievance of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that the certified copy of the impugned docket order is incorrect. Whereas, the actual impugned docket order dated

22.1O.2027 reads as under: " Main suit is ipe for tial and tlrcre is no inteim order in this petition. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides, this petition is cLosed."

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner stated that I.A. No. 25 of 2Ol8 (old I.A. No.34 18 of 20 10) was fiied along with the suit seeking ad-inteim injunction and status quo order was granted in favour of the revision petitioner and was extended from tirne to time. While so, the impugned docket order dated 22.10.2021. was ( \ 6: -Y passed by the tria,l Court with an observation r-rat there is no rnJunctton order in this petition. Hence, he prayec the Court to set aside the impugned docket order dated 22.10.2O2.. .

5. Learned counsel for the respondents 3 -gued that the impugned docket order is not passed on merits I -rd therefore, the revision is not rnaintainable. He further submitterl that the revision petitioner ought to have sought to re-open the retition by filing appropriate petition before the trial Court insr.r ad of filing the present revision.

6. Having considered the arguments of both th,: learnecl counsel, the matter is remanded to the trial Court o consid er the appropriateness of the impugned docket order date I 22 .lO .2021 for clarification with respect to passing of the status r uo order and its extension from time to time. 7 . Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is di rposed of. There shal1 be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in : Lis appeal, sha11 stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd .L. LAKSHMI BABU E EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER 1- Shri Satyanarayan Soni(Dead), , dead as per sole Lr \ To, &., --7 ,/

2. Purshottamdas Soni (Dead), (dead as per Lr) 3. Dist. Registrar, Red Hill, Nampally 4. Mukunddas Soni, Sio Late Purshottamdas Soni aged about 55 years, Occ. Business, rlo. H. No.4-7-290, Easamia Bazar, Hyderabad-27. I

5. Smt Kamala Soni, w/o Late Shri Ghanshyamdas Soni aged about 55 years, Occ. Housewife r/o. H. No.4-7-290, Easamia Bazar, Hyd-erabad-27.

6. Smt Priyanka Mundada, D/o Late Shri Ghanshyamdas Soni aged about 30 years, Occ. Housewife R/o. Plot No.305, flat No.201, Vakratund Apartments, Chikali layout Near east RTO office, Nagpur - 440 035.

7. Miss Payal Soni (Dead), (Dead as per L0 8. Smt Nirmala Phafat, d/o Late Purshottamdas Soni aged about 56 years, Occ. Housewife rto. H. No.4-7-290, Easamia Bazar, Hyde-rabad-27.

9. Smt Meera Damani, d/o Late Purshottamdas Soni aged about 50 years, Occ Housewife rlo. H. No.4-7 -290, Easamia Bazar, Hyderabad-27.fhe Respondents No. 1 to 3 and 5 to 9 are not necessary parties to the present revtston. 'l0.One CC to SRl. AADESH VARMA Advocate [OPUC] 1 't. One CC to SRl. Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Gopies (4. \ r jtr, .l . \._ ,:; .i L '\.-, .....\ .i,..\ ILI :l! / I it/' 'i' HIGH COURT DATED:18/08/2023 ) ORDER CRP.No.1843 ot 2024 DISPOSTNG OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETIT]()N I A' o \ q,\ l-