The High Court · 2025

5. Smt. Swapna, Wo. Govind, D/o. Pandu, Aged about 25 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. Narayankhed Village, and Mandal, Medak Dist.

6. E. Narsimulu, S/o. Late. Pandu, aged aboul 35 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, 7. E. Srishailam, S/o. late. Pandu, aged about 30 years, Occ. Agriculture, 8. E. Ashok, S/o. Late. Pandu, Aged about 28 years., Occ. Agriculture, 6 to B, R/o. Gangaram Village, Vikarabad lvlandal, Rangareddy Disttrict.

9. Smt. Lalitha, Wo. Jangaiah, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Chilkamarri Village, Shadnagar, lvlahabubnagar District. '10. E. Surekha, D/o. Late. Pandu, aged about 25 Occ. House hold, Rio. Shivaramnagar Colony, Vikarabad Municipality, Rangareddy District. 1't. Smt. Shyamala, D/o. Late. Slddi Ramulu, Wo. Ankenapally Venkataiah, Aged about 40 years Occ. House wife, R/ o. RTC Cross road, Kalyana mandapam, [t/lusheerabad, Hyderabad -

12.Smt. Slddi Sakku Bai, D/o. Late. Siddi Ramulu, Wo. Ramtrlu, aged about 38 years, Occ. Teacher, R/o. Gangaram Village, of Vikarabad mandal, Rangareddy District. -13.Annasaram @ lltam Ramulu, S/o. late. Mallaiah, aged about 55 years, Occ. Pvt. Employee, R/o. Annasaram Village, Kotepally Mandal, Vikarbad District. (AIl are LR's of late. A. Susheelamma, who is the sister of plaintiff)

14.Smt. Erravali Mallamma, Wo. Late. Pandu, aged about 50 years., Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Shivaram Colony, Vikarabad Town and District. (LR of late. Padmamma who is sister of Plaintiff) '15. Smt. B. Janaki Devi, Wo. B. Ramakrishna, R/o. Gangaram Village of Vlkarabad lvlandal, Rangareddy District.

16.Wasip Hasan Lateef, S/o. M.Abdul Hasan, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 10-3- 304112, Humayun Nagar, [Vlasab Tank, Hyderabad. '17. Ravi Avinesh, S/o. late. Gurumurthy, Rio H.No. 1B/A, P.S Nagar Colony, near Vijaynagar Colony, Hyderabad. (Died per L.r Respondent No.20)

18. Smt. Rajarla Ratna Naidu, Wo. Dr.Rajender Naidu, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. 4-5-712 Ali Bagh, Vikarabad lvlunicipality. Rangareddy District.

19. K- Ramulu, S/o. Parmaiah, aged about 40 years., Occ . Agriculture, R/o. Gangaram Village, Vikarabad Municipality, Rangareddy District.

20.Smt. Kamalakumari, Wo. Late. Gurumurthy, aged about . 65 years., Occ. Nill, " now she is Residing at H.No. 10-2-289-120 (49) 52, SP Nagar Colony, Near Vijayanagar Colony, Hyderabad. (LR of late. Ravi Avinash Who is mother of RespondenUDefendant No.1 7) ...RESPONDEN TS/DEFENDANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stabd in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further Proceedings in O.S. No. 92 2009 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad -i Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Nyayapathi Prashant Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1863 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

26.04.2024 in 1.A.No.102 of 2024 in O.S.No.92 of 2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad.

2. Heard Sri Nyayapathi Prashanth, learned counsel for petitioner. No representation on behalf of the respondents.

3. Brief facts relevant for adiudication of the present Civil Revision Petition are that petitioner filed a suit in O.S.No.92 of 2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad against the respondents for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. The said suit was posted on 08.02.2024 for petitioner's further evidence and on that day, Iearned counsel for petitioner reported no further evidence and hence., the petitioner's side evidence was closed and the matter was adjourned to 1,6.02.2024 for respondents' side evidence. At that stage, petitioner filed I.A.No.12 of 2024 under Section 151 of CPC praying to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 to file additional documents and to mark the same as Exs.A3 to 4.16 and filed another I.A.No.13 of 2024 under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC praying to recall P.W.1 for additional evidence for marking Exs.A3 to 416. Said applications were allowed on 1.6.02.2024 I 2 subject to condition that P.w.1 shall adduce her further eviclence on the next date of hearing, failing which, apprications shal stand dismissed and posted tu,o applications to 23.02.2024. On 22.02.2024, p.W.1 was called absent and since petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order, I.A.Nos.12 and 13 of 2024were dismissed. '

4. Subsequently, petitioner filed I.A.No.1 02 of 2024 through her GPA holder to reopen the petitio.els evidence to lead {urther evidence as P.W.3 and to mark Exs.A3 to 4.16 by stating that some important documents wele filed in I.A.No.84 o{ 2078 and I.A.No.72 of 2023 and the same wete allowed and the same documents to be markecl on behalf of the petitioner ar-r.d therefore, prayed to permit the petitioner to lead further evidence as P.w.3 and to mark Ex.A3 to 416. The trial Court ztide impugned order dated 26.04.2024 dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner had contended that due to ill- health and old age problems, petitioner could not appear before the hial Court on 08.02.2024 and the trial Court was pleased to closed the evidence of P.W.1. He further contended that petitioner filed two applications i.e., IA Nos'12 and 13 of 2O'A and the same were allowed conditiona\, however, P'W'1 could not aPpear before the Court , ) J because of ill-health and old aged problems and therefore, the said applications were dismissed on 23.02.2024. He further contended that petitioner has executed GPA in favour of her husband and said GPA holder filed application in I.A.No.102 of 2024 to reopen the petitioner's evidence to mark the exhibits by adclucing his. evidence as P.W.3. However, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the application without taking into consideration the ill-health of the petitioner as well as GPA holder and also the fact that the documents sought to be marked are crucial to substantiate the case of the petitioner and finally, prayed to allow the revision and set aside the impugnecl order dated 26.04.2024.

6. Perusal of the record would disclose that evidence on behalf of I the petitioner was closed on 08.02.2024 and thereafter, petitioner filed two applications i.e., IA No.12 of 2024 to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 for marking Exs.A3 to ,4'16 and I.A.No.13 of 2024 to recall P.W.1 for additional evidence and said applications were allowed on 1,6.02.2024 conditionally, failing which, applications shal1 stand dismissed and posted two applications on 23.02.2024 for compliance. However, it appears that petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order and accordingly, said applications were dismissed. Thereafter, petitioner, through her GPA holder filed I.A.No.102 of 2009 to reopen the petitioner's evidence to lead further evidence as P.W.3 for marking I t 4 Exs.A3 to 416. The trial Court dismissed the said apprication vide order dated 26.04.2024 wiLh the following obseruations: "8. There is nolhing on record to show that the petitioner/plaintiff chalienged the said orders of dismissal in I.A.No.12 of 2024 ard 13 of 2024 dated 23.02.2024, before the Hon,ble Appellate Court. However, after dismrssal of the above said two petitions for.reopening and recalling of P.W.1 for further evidence due to non-compliance of condition, the petitioner/plaintiff has again cleverly filed the present petition seekrng same prayer by cleverly modifying, to lead further evidence for marking of the documents as Exs.A3 to A.16 by eramining P.W.3 as against marking of the said documents through p.W.1, which was soughr for by filing I.A.No.12 of 2024 and I.A.No.13 of 2024, which as stated supra were allowed conditionally, but later dismissed for non-compliance of condition of adducing further evidencc of p.W.1 on the next date of hearing. Thus, when I.A.No.12 of 2024 and I.A.No.13 of 2024 seeking the same prayer to reopen the evidence of p.W.1 and recall P.W.l for rnarking o{ Exs.A3 to .416 has been dismissed and the same was not challenged, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition filed by the petitioner seeking similar relief by cleverly making minor modifications to the prayer i_n the petition, is an utter abuse of process of law and hence, the same is not maintainable. Therefore, the act of petitioner/plaintiff in filing repeated petitions seeking sinrilar prayer despite dismissal of I.A.No.12 of Z0Z4 and I.A.No.13 of 2024, is nothing but abuse of process of law with an intention to procrastinate the mattel which invariably results in prejudice to the other side. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed."

7. As rightly' observed by the frial Court, the relief sought in I.A.No.102 of 2024 is same as that of the rerief sought in I.A.Nos.12 and 13 of 2024 and admittedly, I.A.Nos.12 and 13 of 2024 were dismissed on ) I 't \ 5

23.02.2024 and no steps have been taken by the petitioner to set aside the dismissal orders dated 23.02.2024. However, filed one more application i.e., I.A.No.102 of 2024 with the same relief, which is per se not maintainable and is hit by the principle of res judicata and is also devoid of any merit.

8. In view of above discussion, in considered opinion of this Court, the trial Court was justified in dismissing I.A.No.102 of 2024. Further, petitioner failed to point out any illegality irregularity in the impugned order dated 26.04.2024, therefore, the Civil Revision Petition fails and accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. Sd/- T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ To, //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 1, The Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad. 2. One CC to Sri Nyayapathi Prashant, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies VH/PSL w HIGH COURT DATED: 2710212025 ORDER / CRP.No.1863 of 2024 -( r- S I ( q d 1$ rPn 2m I t o€s PArc a'r t ? a t DISMISSING THE CRP @