The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased grant stay of all further proceedings in the suit O.S. No. 87 of 2017 pending on the file of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad pending disposal of CRP lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 14.07.2023 passed in lA No. 1 of 2023 in CRP No.1947 ot2023 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim Order daled 1410712023 passed in l.A. No. 1 ol 2023 in CRP No- 1947 of 2023 for such period as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper pending disposal of the main application. Counsel for the Petitioners:SRl. G ARUN Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: SRl. ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD Counsel forthe Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRl. SRIKANTH HARIHARAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: '1949 OF 2023 Petition Under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia Aggrieved by the Order daled 25-04-2023 passed in lA. No.638 of 201 8 in OS.No. 87 of 2017 , on the file of the Court of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. Between: 1 . Shri A- Appa Rao, S/o. A. Krishnaiah aged 81 years Occ. Horticulturist, R/o. 356-A, Flat No. 102, Raghuram Valley, M.L.A. Colony, Road No. 12' Banjara Hills, Hyderabad

2. Shri A.Rama Rao, S/o. A. Krishnaiah Aged abr-rut 76 years Occ. Retired Employee, Resident of HIG 368, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. 3. Shri A. Rama Kotaiah, Sio. A. Krishnaiah Aged 79 years, Occ. Agriculture, Resident of Kachavaram Village, Khammam District.

4. Shri Ch. Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. Ch. Narasaiah, aged about 59 years, Occ, Agriculture, Resident of Musalamadugu Village, Khammam District. 5. Shri G.Venkateshwara Rao, S/o. G Narasaiah, Aged about 73 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Musalamadugu Village, Khammam District. Petitioner No. 2 to 5 are represented by their Special Power of Attorney holder Shri A. Prashant Kumar, S/o. A. Appa Rao, aged 5l years, Occ. Service, Resident of 3564, Ftat No. 102, Raghuram Valley, M.L.A. Colony, Road No.12, Banjara Hills' Hyderabad' ...'ET,r.NER'/'LATNTTFF AND 1 Smt. Varinder Kaur, D/o Late Mangal Singh Aged aboul4T years, Occ Household R/o. Bungalow No..184, Plassy Lines Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad Cantonment ...Defendant No. 4

2. Surender Kaur, D/o Late Mangal Singh Aged about 66 years, Occ. Homemaker Rl/o Bungalow No. 184, Plassey Lines, Old Bowenpally, SecunderabadCantonment,Secunderabad ...DefendantNo. 1

3. Smt. Ajinder Kaur, D/o Late Mangal Singh, Wo. Tejpal Singh Arora, Aged about 64 Years, Occ. Housemaker, R/o. Central Point, Ramdaspet, Nagpur, Maharashtra State. ... Defendant No. 2

4. Shri Amarjit Singh, S/o. Late Mangal Singh Aged about 61 years Occ. Business, Rl/o. 75, Teachers Colony, Trimu|ghery, tT:[X"J:bn?r_"lt,

5. Johnson Marble Company a company, Bungalow No. 184, (part) Plassey Lines, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad Cantonment represented by it authorized Person. ... Defendant No. 5

6. Ex-Servicemen Crane Services, Bungalow No. 184, (part), Plassy Lines, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad Cantonment represented by it authorized Person .. . Defendant No. 6 (Respondent No. 5 and 6 are not necessary Parties to CRP as they are exparte in the suit) ...RES'.NDENTS / w No: 't oF 2023 Petition under Section '15'l 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 all further proceedings in the suit O.S. No. 87 of 2017 pending on the file of the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court al Secunderabad pending disposal of the CRP lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Sectton 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 14.07.2023 passed in lA No. 1 oI 2023 in CRP No.1949 of2023 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 14.07.2023 passed in l.A.No 1 of 2023 in CRP 1949 of 2023 for such period as, ^his Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper pending disposal of the main application and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioners:Sil. G ARUN Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl. ZEESHAN ADNAN MAHMOOD Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3: SRl. SRIKANTH HARIHARAN The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PI-;l'[l'lON Nos.I 941 &. 1949 of 2023 COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition Nos.1947 and 1949 ot 2023 are directed against the corrrnon order, dated 25.04.2023, passed by the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in I.A.Nos.637 & 638 of 2023 in OS.No.87 ot.2017, respectively.

2. By the impugned common order, lA.Nos.6l7 and 638 of 2023 fited by defendant No.4 to reopen thc suit, and to set aside the order dated 17.04.2019 and to receive thc i,i,ritten statement were allowed by the trial Court. i. Since the issue involved in both thc Civil Revision Petitions is intcrconnected and the result is intcrdcpendent, both the Revision Petitions are heard together and arc being disposed of by comnron order.

4. The revision petitioners herein ale ptaintifi's and respondent Nos. I to 6 are delendant Nos.4, 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, r'espectively, in the suit before the trial Cour1. For conveniencc, hcrcinafter, the parties will be refcrred to as they are atlaycd in thc suit.

5. Heard Sri G.Arun, lcalncd counscl fbr the revision petitpners, Sli Zeeshan Adnan Mahmoocl. lcarned counsel for 2 LI\A, J CRP.Nos.l9i7 & 1949 of202l respondent No. I arlcl Sri Srikanth Ilar.iharan, Iearned counsel for respondent Nos.l ancl -l 6. Conciscll, st:rrccl. the lacts of the case relevant for adjudication lbr rhc prcsent Ilcvision petitions are thal the plaintiffs filed suit in OS.No.S7 ol 2017 for partition and pennanent injunction irr resp.rcct ol- the suit schedule propefty against the defendants. l'ltc clcf-cnclants entered appearance and engaged counsels, hou.--1,.-1.. sonrc ol the defendants failed to file their written statcntcnrs. Itcnoc. thc right ol delcndant Nos.1, 2 and 4 to file written stalcnlent r,r,as lorfeited by the trial Court vide order dated 17.04.2019. [.atcr. thc trial ol. thc suit was proceeded with and P.W- I rvas cranr irrcd on behalf ol the plaintifl!; that p.W_ I was also cross-cxarn inc<J by learnecl counsel for defendant No.4; that on completion ol- plurnriffs, sidc evidence, when the matter was being postcd lrrr r.lclindants, sidc evidence, the trial Court taking notc of the lact tlrat thc right o1. cleltndant Nos. t, 2 and 4 for filing written sLatcrlrent rvas lorle ited, posted the suit to 30.01.2023 for evidence or crer-crdant No.3; that on the said date. defe,dant No.3 reportecl no evidence and hence, the matter was posted to 7 _) LNA, J CRP.Nos.l917 & 1949 o12023

07.0)-.202.3 lor argumenrs, on which dare, dcl'endant No.4 fited the aforesaid trvo applications, i.e., IA.Nos.637 and 639 of 2023.

8. 'l'hc plaintift's tlled counrcrs resisting both applications. -l'he trial Cou11, on licaring lcarnccl counsel lor both the parlics, r'ide irnpugned cornmon order. darcd 25.04.2023 allowed thc said applications on costs with observations that party cannot be penalized lbr the misrake or omission on the part of his/her counsel; that the tirne lirnit lbr fiting rvritten statement is not nrarrdatorl.. but only directory; that clct'enclant No.4 has shown sulllcient reason and exceptional circuntstances are made out for non-filing ol thc wr.itten staremcnt in tirnc euestioning the said conlnon order', the pl.c-senl. Revisions arc filcd.

9. l-ear-ned counsel lor the petitioners/p laintil ls submitted that on 23.12.2022, P.W- I was cross-examined on behalf of defendant No.4 and on thc samc. day, the trial Court having observed that the right of dclendant No.4 to llle rvritten statL'nlcnt was fbrfeited on l1 .04.2019, posted the suir fbr. evidencc of defendant No.3, who lllcd u,ritten statemcnt, howevcr, on 30.01.2023, defendant No.3 rcpofted no evidencc and hcnce, tlie suit n,as posted to 07.02.2023 itrgurncnts. At that stage, i.e., at rhc Iag end of the suit, I 4 LNA, J CRP.Nos" 1917 & 1919 of 2023 defendant No.-l canrc rrp rr itlr the prcscnt applications by blaming her earlier coLrrscr rirr' r.c hcs and dcrh,lt in trling *,ritten slatement and thereforc, fhe lcas.ns put for-th by dcl.endanL No.4 lor non_ filing of thc * rittc, stirlcrrcrI in tirrc a'c not prausibre and cannot be acceptcd.

10. Learned coLrrrscl lbr petitioners fufther. submitted that defendant No.4 e.g.uitcrl lr ,e\\ co,.scl ,uvho crttss_cxamined the witness/es rvho r'cre cx.r.ined on beharf orthe praintitrs ancl even at that staee, def'endant No.4 clicl not take steps to file u,ritten statement and thc al'orcsai<l apltlicatiols rvcre Illccl only when the suit was posted lor lr.sunrcnts. [_car.necl counsel Ilrther subrnitted that defendant No.-l crccgrt slating that shc is a la1, uornan and has no knowledge ol Ieeal ;rror:cedings. has not shown plausible reason for non-filing ol' thc rr rittcrr statcnlcnt in time, ll6rvever, the trial Court rvithout propcrl\ appreciating the above tacts and clear negligence a.d lachcs o. thc part or defendant No.4 a[owed thc applications on cr-ronc(_\us obscr.r ations that defen<jarrt No.4 has shorvn sufficicnL t..lrson artd has made out exceptional circumstances lirr non-f rling ol the $,r.itten statel-ncn1 in time. l ) LNA, I CRP.Nos.l917 & 1949 of2023 Learned counsel, theretble, prayed to allow the Revisions by setting asicle the impu-alncd conrnron oldcr I I . I-earned counsel tbr respondc-nt No. l/defendant No.4 subrnitted that de f'cndant No..{ has engaged an advocate who failed to file rvrittcn statcrncnt u'ithin the prcscr ibcd pcriod and hence, her right to filc $,r'itten stateulent was [b[f'eited, lor no fault or laches on the part ol- det'cndant No.4. I Ie f urther sLrbmitted that defendant No.4 being a la1, u.'ornan had no know lcdgc of lcgal proceedings and that non-lrling of rvli[ten staLcment has came to light only on

23.12.2022 when the evidencc on behall o1' plaintiffs was closed and that irnmediatcly, delenclant No.4 tlled the aforesaid two application along r.vith thc r.i ritten statelrcnt to show her bona fides. 81 contending thus, lc'ar-ned counsel subrnitted that the trial Court has rightly allou'ed the applications by taking lnto consideration the ticts and circurnstances ol'thc case and also the bona ./ide.s ol del'cndant No.-l and hencc. these Revisions being devoih of mcrits arc liable to bc dismisscd. 1,2. In support ol his contentions, lcarnecl counsel for respondent No. I relied upon the lbllo*'ing.iLrdgments:- I ! J 6 I.NA, J (-RP.Nos.l917 & 1949 of 202-l (l)Garment Crt/i tts. prokosh (.'hond Goelt (2) K.Vtlormotlti tttrl Others I,s. liunmresrtri (3)PIC Deptrtntcntols pt,t Lttl l1s. .greeleothers pt,t Ltd) (4)Bhogtuan Su,oroop l/s. ll,Iool Chanil (5\Tctcngu Rautio Vs. llugru Rutrtio' (6) RaJi q Vs. M un s h i I o /' (7 ) S.Sen lh il K u nt n r tt.s. S us e t,l rr- (8) Kaihsh Vs. Nanh'ku3 (9)Bharat Karla lis. Ruj Kishon Chnbro,)

13. In Gtrnrcnl Cnrft's case (l'r citcd supra), thc IIon,ble Apex Court held that the I Iieh (-ourr ri lrilc cxercising tlte supervisory jurisdiction undcr Articrc r27 of rhc co,stitLrtion or- Inclia does not act as a Court of I;irsl ,\ppeal to rc_appreciate, re_weigh the evidence or facts, and that thc porrcr undcr Articlc 227 has to be exercised sparingll irr rppropriate cascs. ' (2022) 4 scc 181 ' 2025 SCC Online SC 98s 3 2ozq scc online sc 4082 ' (1983) 2 scc 132 s 2006 scc online ori 84 t lrsar; z scc zaa 7 zn?J 1 LW 829 81zoos|? scc +ao e 2022 SCC Online SC 6t 3 1 LNA, J CRP.Nos.l947 & 1949 o12023

14. ln K. Valorntal/rl's cusc 12"'r cited supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the pou cl unclcr Alticlc 127 of Constitution of India is supervisorS ancl thc suure camot bc invoked to usurp the original jurisdiction of thc (lourr tvhich rt sceks to supervise.

15. In PIC Depurtntentuls Pvt Ltd's case (l"r cited supra), the Hon'ble Apcx Cor-rrt has condoncd the dclal' ol' 17 years in filing the written statelnelrt. In thc saicl case. it lppcars that in the official website of l{igh Court, thc status o1' thc suit was reflected as 'disposed ol'on 01.0:1.2000', howcver, uo such orders were traced, hence, the Hon'ble Apcx ('ourt condonccl thc dclay of l7 years in filing the written statenrent

16. ln Bhtgttmn Sttnxtp's cuse (4'r' circd supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court obserr ed that in a suit lbl pal'ti1ion, the position of plaintiffs and deti:ndants can bc intcrchangcable t7. In Telengu Ruutia's case 15'r' cited supla), the High Court of Orissa has reiterated thc obser-r ation ol'thc I lon'ble Supreme Court in Bhogwan Swanrult's case that in a sr-rit fbl partition, both the plaintiff and delendant stand on samc tboting t LNA, J ( RP.itot.l947 & t919 of 2023 I 8. In Rtfiq's casc (6tr' cited supra). the I lon'ble Apex Court observed that an inrrocerrt part\ caunot bc alloried to sulfer injusticc sintply becaLrsc a chosen uclr ocatc has clelaultcd.

19. ln S.Senthil Kumtr's case (7'r' citccl sirpra). thc High Court of Madras held that no litisant shall bc pur to pr.c.iLrdicc lbr rhc lault on part of the counscl.

20. In Kailash's casc (8'r' cited supr.a). the []orr'ble Apex Court held that extensior-r of tini.. in filing thc ir.r.irrcrr sratenrcnt may be allowed, b1, imposirig costs. if it is necdccl to bc given lor circumstances which are excelttional. occasioncd by reasons beyond the control ol'thc dcf-cndant ancl qr.ave iniusticc rvould be occasioned if the tirnc \r.as not extcnclcd. 2l . In Bhqrat Kolra's case (9'r' citcd supra). thc I lon'blc Apex Court reiterated the principlc laid dos.n in Kailash.s case (grl,cited supra) and held that dclav in llline r\..ritLcn state D.lcnt could not very well be compensated u,ith costs but dcnving thc benellt ol filing of the written statcment is trnt-easonab lc.

22. Apropos the abovc suhrnissiorrs ntaclc b1. Icar.ncd counsel for bdtluhe paflics, thc only point thar ar.iscs lbr consicleration is whether defenclan[ No.4 is cntitlecr to iuclurge.cc ol rhis court in \ \ I 9 LNA, J CRP-Nos.l917 & 1949 ({2023 permitting her to lile the rrril.ten starcnrcnt, by setting aside the order dated 17.04.2019 ol'tlru rlirrl Courr. rrhcrcunder her right to file written statement u,as lbr'l.:itcd.

23. Undisputabty, delcndrrrrr No..l e ar)rc Lrp with two applications, one to reol)cn rlrc suit and enothcr to set aside the order dated 17.04.2019 and to le ccivc hcr ri litrcn statement. The said two applications ucre lllctl rr,hen rltc suit was posted for arguments. However, it is pclrincrrt to nole that in the affidavit, filed in support of the saicl applicarion, dcll.rrclanr No.4 avened that she is a lay woman and has r.ro kntrrr letlge ol lcsul proceedings and she came to know that l-rcl riglrt trt lilc u t iu.cn statement was forfeited in the suit, onlr rr hcrr rltc sunrc u.as pointed out by the trial Court while the su it rr as poste d lbl adtluc ing evidence on behalf of the defendants.

24. A close scrutiny ol'rccolcl cliscloscs that dcl'endant No.4 filed the aforesaid applications ',i,itlrin a pelitrci ol rrvo wceks from the date of her knowledgc aboLrt thc order.. tllrccl 17.04.2019, forfeiting her right to flle writtcn sratcnlcnr. 'l hLrs, iL x[)pcar.s that defendant No.4 acted with diligencc in takirrs stcps urrtl showcd her bona fide l0 LNA, J ('RI'.Not.1917 & 1949 o1202-l by filing \4,rittcn statcntcnt alons with th(. l)li)rcsaicl two applications

25. Furtlicr, it is thc casc of crcf'cndant No.4 trrar srrc ertr.usted the matter to an advocalc. howcvcr.. hc failcci to inlirrnr hcr. about filing of written statclnetrt antl as such, duc to hcr lack ol knowledgc of Iegal procccclings, thc rvritterr statcnrL-nt could not be filed in time. u,hich rcsultcd in passing o{' orcjcr br rlte trial C-ourt forfeiting her right to rvriiten statc,rent. Def-cnd..t No.4 lirrlher asserted that non-filing oi- written staterrent in tirrc rias ,cither willful nor \\.anton and that becausc of'cicl'ault rirr tlrc Parl ol'her earlier coutrsel, shc u,ould [rc put to irrcparablc l()5s an(l injuri,. A party is not expected to constalltly rnor.ritor his/hcr Ia* \ cr.or attend Court hearings oncc thc-r, Itave enga.ecd a la rvl cr IrLrt fbrth rhcir case.

26. Here, it is per.tinent to n61s 1;1., the pr.cscnt sLrit is flled lbr partition of the suit sclrcdtrlc propcrt,v and thcrcrbr.c. i. tlrc rigrrt or' the proposition laid down by thc I lon'blc Sul.rrcurc Court in Bhagwan Swaroop's casc, which rvas rcitcratcc.l b1, tltc I Iigh Court of orissa in T'erenltu lreutio's casc. it is to bc ..tcrr trrat in a suit trr partition. tJrc position or thc praintifl' and dc|c.craut can be \ I LNA, J CRP.Nos.l947 & 1919 ol2023 interchangeable and both stand on Lhc santc footing. In other words, it is implied that sr"rbstantirl ri,1irr. ..rl'rhe. plaintiff\ akin to that of defendant No.4 are inr.olrcd, ri hie h nccds to be protected, even tl-rough there are some tcchn icali proccclu ral lapses.

27. Viewed fron.r that angle and also as Jrcl the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in I{atiq'> casc (cirecl supra) and Kailash's (cited supra), in the instanr case as there is default/inaction/omissio4 on rhe part oi'Lhe callicr counseI engaged by delendant No.4 in lbllou ing up thc siiri i]r'u.L-cdings, defendant No.4-a litigant shall not be rnacle to sLrl-ldr ol put to prejudice by being deprived of her right to dell'ncl or pur tbl1h her case

28. Fufthermore, as per thc plor iso ro (JL'clcr Vlll Rule 1 CPC, the time limit for fiting the ',vritten statcm.nt is not rnandatory, but only directory. This provision o1'larv rogcLhcr u ith thc observations made by the Hon'ble Suprernc ('oult in Rltrt'ut Kalru's case (cited supra), entitles the petitioner {br condonarion ol delay in liting the written staterhent by imposition of cosrs, as u'as rightly held by the trial Courl in the impugned cornrnon ortlcr

29. As regards the reliancc placed b_r I-carncd counsel for respondent No. 1 on the judgments of the [ [on'ble Sr-rpreme Court in l) LNA, J CRP. \'os.1947 & 1949 of 202-l Garment Craft's casc (citcd supra) and K.Valanrarthi,s casc (cited supra), thc same al-c not relevant to the pr.esent case sincc this Court rvhile adjudicating the prescnt Revisions, the question of e ither re-appreciating or rc-weighing thc evidence cjocs not arise. 30. In the light of thc loregoing reasons ancl discussion, this Courl is o1' considercd opinion that the irrpugned common order. passed by the trial Courl is r.ational and as the respondents lrcr.ein lailed to point out any'illegality or. infinnity in the irnpugned common order, this Court declines to interlere with the sante. 31. In the result, thc Revision petitions are dismissed. 32. Pending rriscellancous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. I \ //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. JAYASREE UTY REGISTRAR D CTION OFFICER To, l The XXV|r Additionar chief Judge, city civir court at secunderabad 2. 2 CCs to SRt G ARUN, Advocite tOiUCl 3 2 CCs to SRt. ZEESHfl{ ADNAN VnrfnrCjOO, Advocate tOpUCl 4. 2 CCs to SRt. SRTKANTH HARIHARAN, Advocate IOpUil 5. Two CD Copies PM/sh , o"ry, HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 /a 1HE St4re t? J 6t z L) t\ -a ?9lljt zffi :A, O;.^ ;,r. i c ' raro .:\_ COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.1947 & 1949 ot Z0Z3 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS I { )q