The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section .l 51 of CpC praying that i I the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the pLtiti-on, th,: High court may be pleased to pass orders to suspend all further proceedingr in OS 161 of iOl pending on the file of the Xil Additionar chief JudrT r, city civir court, Secunderabad till the disposal of this CRp CIVIL REVISI ON PETITION N O: 1961 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia :rr grieved by the order daled25lo3l2025 Passed in 1.A.No.695 of 2024 in os No..18z ot zott on the fite of the Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad Between: Aditya Vikarm Vyas, s/o Niranjan Vyas Aged 40 years, c;c of H No 2-2- 130/A, 2-2-13sitB, (otd Xt; 6i_AJ;- , Secunderabad-3 Business resident Floor, M.G.Road. .Revision Petitioner AND 1 J 4 Suresh Vyas @ Suresh Kumaj Vyjrs,^s/o Late Chiranji \,, as. Aged 59 years. -' oc: Business r/o H.No. 1-B-11sr2iDrz6, til rd Frooi, Alava ti apa"rrmenlsl-- Jawahar nagar, Macleoguda. SecunderaOaO_S- Mrs.Bharathi Vyas, w/o Late Baiju Vyas Aged 59 years, ( cc.Housewife. Dr.Kashyap vyas, s/o Late Baiju Vyas Aged 29 years. Oc ;. trledical profession. - ' " - Kartik Vyas, s/o Late Baiju Vyas Aged 27 years, Occ. Btl iness. lapa^sya vyas, d/o Late Baiju Vyas w/o prafull. C Vyas. z ;ed 34 years, Occ.Service. (Resoondents 2 t<i 5 are resioJnis of H.fro t:z4ieb-tbid No 61-A) Third Ftrjor, M G Road, S.ir"o"[Oia"_:)"" ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'r of cpc praying that in the : .cumstances stated in the affidavit fired in supp_ort of the petiiion, th; High courl may o" pr"rr"o't" pass orders to suspend ail further proceedings in oS 187 0f 2117'peniin;;; the file of the Xrr Additionar chief Judge, crti civir court, Se :rnoe,ru.o" tiri ine disposal of this CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P RAM CHANDER , REPRESENTING SRI RAJ KIRAN PAGADALA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: SRI B DHARMA TEJA, REPRESENTING SRI R A ACHUTHANAND The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER :/ TI{E HONOT]RABI,E SRI JUSTICE P. S,\}1 KOSHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.l884 & l96l tt 2025 COMMON ORDE,R: Fleard Mr.P.Ram Chander, learned coun ' I reprcscnting Mr.P.Raj Kiran, Iearned counsel for the petitioner rr I I Mr'B Dharma Teja, learned counsel representing Mr.R.A.Achtrll anand. lcarned counsel lor the respondent Nos.2 to 4. Perused thc I I llerial available on record. 1-he presenl is an olfshoot olearlier Civil Rc',': on Pctitiorl i'e,

2. C.R.P.No.514 ol 2024 which stood decided cn 22-01 - il4

3. Earlier, C.R.P.No.5l4 of 2024 was allowetl by this Bench permitting the lour civil suits i.e., tl-rree suits I partition i e', O.S.Nos.t61 oi2017, 187 of 2Ol1 and O.S.No.68 ol 1023 along rvith a suit tbr dissolution of partnership i.e., O.S.No.E I of 2017 to bc - the satrre suit clubbed together as all the suits were in respect .r schedule property and between the same parties or' :ither side' The said C.R.P. stood allowed on22.03.2024.

4. However today, when these matters are take I up, it has been informed that the learned trial court till date has not t:en able to club all the suits and take up for a joint trial and is ;till procceding 2 independently in all the fbur suits and therefore, the instant revision pclition has been filed.

5. Mr'. Mr.B.Dharma Te.ia, learned counsel entered appearance on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 4 and submits that so far as clubbing all the three suits of partition i.e., O.S.Nos.l 6l of 2017, 187 of 2017 and O.S.No.68 of 2023 being clubbed together as ordered by this Court earlier, he does not have anv objcction. Nonetheless, he states that the lourth suit i.e., O.S.No.8 I of 201 7 being a suit lor dissolution of partnership that would rcquires a separate set of evidence and contentions hence may not be clubbed and it can be taken up separately.

6. The said contention of the leamed counsel appearing for the r'espondents is not objectionable to the counsel fbr the petitioner herein. He further submits that atleast the other three suits lbr partition may be clubbed and ordered to be taken up togcther.

7. Given the said submission made by the leamed counsel for the pafties on eithei side, in slight modification to the order passed in C.R.P.No.5l4 of 2024, decided on22.03.2024, this Court orders that let the three suits of partition i.e., O.S.Nos. l6l of 2017, 187 of 2017 and O.S.No.68 of 2023 be clubbed together and the trial courl is directed to proceed and conduct joint trial fbr the three partition suits \ \ ) 3 and proceed appropriately by deciding the same as 'xpeditiously as possibte. Howevcr, as regards the tburth suit i.e., () I .No-S1 ol'2023 i.e., suit for dissolution of partnership, the satnc Ir ty be takcn up indcpendently and the same may be decided in t I : co ut'sc o I' the ev'idence that the parties would be leading in the said I uit.

8. Let the order passed in the present C.R.Ps., bc nadc parl ()l'the record of C.R.P.No.5l4 of 2024.

9. With the aforesaid direction, this civit revisit,r petitions stand allowed. No ordcl as to costs. As a sequel, rniscellaneous applications pending t irny, shall stand closed. SD/- N.CHAI DRA SEKTIAR RAO I) ]PU'[Y IIT;(;ISTILAR \ \ //TRUE COPY// \ecrrou oFFrcER To,

1. The Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunde abad 2. One CC to Sri Raj Kiran Pagadala, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri R A Achuthanand, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ABK/PSI, ] u I I I i I l I i I i i l i HIGH COURT DATED: 1910912025 COMMON ORDER CRP Nos: 1884 & 1961 OF 2O2S I I I i 2l * c Al{ 2026 ' ' .. - -.:. -.t./' 'v' ALLOWING THE CRPs WTTHOUT COSTS b aa. b \r