The High Court · 2025

1 Shri A. Appa Rao, S/o. A. Krishnaiah, Aged Bl years, Occ. Horticulturist, R/o. 356-4, 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 about 76 years, Occ. Retired Employee, Resident of HIG 368, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad. 3. Shri A. Rama Kotaiah, S/o. A. Krishnaiah, Aged 79 years, Occ. Agriculture, Resident of Kachavaram Village, Khammam District.

4. Shri Ch. Venkateshwara Rao, Sio. 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. [\/usalamadugu 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 51 years, Occ. Service, Resident of 3564, Flat No. 102, Raghuram Valley, Ir4.L.A. Colony, Road No 12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS AND '1. Surender Kaur, D/o Late Mangal Singh, Aged about 66 years, Occ Homemaker, R/o Bungalow No. 184, Plassey Lines, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad Cantonment, Secunderabad.

2. 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.1

3. Shri Amarjit Singh, S/o. Late Mangal Singh Aged about 61 years Occ Business, R/o. 75, Teachers Colony, Trimulghery, Secunderabad - 15 ...DEFENDANT No.2

4. Smt. Varinder Kaur, D/o Late Mangal Singh Aged about 47 years, Occ Household R/o. Bungalow No. 184, Plassy Lines Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad Cantonment ...DEFENDANT No.3 ...DEFENDANT No.4 I I I I i I I l I I Johnsor. Marble Company a company Bungalow, No. 184, (part) plassey Lines Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad Canionment repre,sented'by it authorized Person. b Ex- Servicemen Crane Services, Bungalow No. 184, (pa11), plassy Lines, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad Cantonment represented by il author2ed person (Respondent No. 5 and 6 are not necessary parties to (lltp as they are exparte in the su it) ..DEFENDANT No.5 ...DEFENDANT No.6 ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Sectron 151 cPC praying that in the crrcrumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High coul may be pleased to extend the interim order dated i4 0z .2023 passed in lA No 1 of 2023 in cRp No. 1985 of 2023 lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the ci-cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppo( of the petition, the High courl may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 14.07.2023 passed in lA. No 1 ol 2023 in cRp No 1985 of 2023 for such period as his Hon,ble Court may ceem fit and proper pending disposal of the main application. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 1 51 cpc praying that in the ci'cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court mzry be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in LA No. 549 of 2023 in O i NO 87 of 2Oi7 on the file of the 27th Additional chief Judge, city civit court S-.cunderabad pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioners in both C.R.p.s: SRI G ARUN Counsel for the Respondents 1 & 2 in both C.R.p.s: M/S SFI|KANTH HARIHARAN Counsel for the Respondent No.4 in both C.R.p.s: SRI ZEESHAN ADAN MAHMOOD The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER { I I I 'r !. i! I I { I I I i I I I d E I t l I I I i I I I I HON'BLI,I SRI .ltlS'ilCIi l.AXNII Nr\l(AY,\NA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PEl'l'llON Nos.leEi & 1985 ol202i COMMON ORDER: (livil Ilcr'ision ['ctition Nos. I9S,] anil I 9ti5 o1' 2023 arc directed against thc cornmor.t orclcr'. clatccl b.01.2023, passed by thc XXVII Additional Chiel.ludgc, Cit), Civil ('ourt, Secundcrabad in I.A.Nos.5-18 ancl -S46 ol'20'l-l in OS.No.87 ol l017, rcspectively. l B1' the irttpr,rgnecl conrnoll oltlct. 1,,\.\os.5:t6 and 548 of 202-i iiled b1' clclcrrtlant Nos.l errcl 2 lo rcc)l).n thc suit, artd to set asidc the orclcr datcd 17.01.10 i9 rtr-tcl to r-cccivc the u'r:itte tr stateurent rvele allou,cd by thc triiil Coun

3. Sincc the issue involvcd in both thc Civil [{cvision Petitions is intcrconncctccl rnd the rcsult is irrtc lcicpcndent, both thc I{cvision Pctitions alc heard to*cthcl irncl it tc buing clisposed o1- by cort.tr.t-rcln otder.

4. 'l'he revisicrn pel-itionels hclein ar-e plairLit)i and respondcnt Nos.l to 6 arc dclenclant Nos.'l, i , 2, i, ,5 lncl 6. r'cspcctively, in thc sLrit bcfore t[-rc trial C'out't. Iror ctr nvcr-ricr rcc, helciuafier', tl-re parlies rvill bc rct'crred to as thcy alc at r':.rycd in thc suir

5. IIeard Sli C.AI'un. lca';ncd courrscl {br thc rcvision petitioncrs, Sri Srikanth Ilariltllan, lcarnctl iourrscl 1br respondcnt ) \ ."/ I i. f E I-NI, J CRP.I'os.1983 & 1985 of 201.t Nos.1 ar-rd I and Sri /ecshan ,'\dnlrrr \.,1ahrnood. Ic rr ned cor.urscl fbr I'esponden I \(r.rl

6. Con:i:clr srrttcd. thc l'rtt:ts ol- thc ctrir' rclcrant lbr adjudication Ior thc plcscnt Iicr ision Pctitions arc tl'at thc plaintifls filcd suit in OS.No.37 ol l0 l7 lirr partitiou urd per.rtr:rnent injunction itt lcsl-,cct o1' (ltc sLrit scIc.dulc pt oI c t]r aqainst thc defendants. I lrc dclinclarrts t'ntcrr'cl appcatan( c and e ngaged cottusels, lr(,rr.)rc'l . i(\ira ()l tlt,. clclindarr(s liri rrl to lllc thcir wlitten statcntcuts. lrcncc. tirc lilltt ol'ticl-endant )ios.1. I and 4 to file written stulcnrcnl t'as lirrlcitr:cl by t1'r" tr,o, (lor-rft vidc order dated 17.0.1.l() 19. [.licr'. llrc tliirl oi' thc suit u as, nr.oceedcd with and P.W-l rrls cxarrincd on bcltall'o1'thc plain,i fs; that Ir.W-l was also cross-crarrinccl br, lcalnecl counsel lbr d,:f-endant Nos. t 2 thal oll cont1.lf ii6,;1 o1'Ilrrintili!' sidc cr i,,l(.uce, \\rhen the lnattel was hcine postcd tbr clclcndants' siclc er irlcnce. thc trial Couft takire notc (){'1hc lbcl rhat tltc right of dcli:tdant Nos.l, 2 and 4 for 1'lliurl. uli{lclr st:rtcntcltt rras lollcitcd. 1ls;1sd the suit to

30.01.2023 lbr cvidcncc ol'clclcndar-rl No.3; that ,rr, the said date, defendant No. 1 rc1:rortecl rro cviclcr-rco and licnce- the matter u,as posted to r);'.()1.:{):l ibl a|r,.rr|tlr-.nts. on \\,hich date. (lclcndant l ! J LNA, J LRI'.Nos.lgEJ & 1935 uJ202-l Nos. 1 and 2 liled Lhc alblcsaid t\\'o applications, i.e., Ir\.Nos.546 and r48 of2023 L 'l'he plaintills iilccl courrtcrs lesisLinq btrth applications

8. The trial C'out't. otr hcar ing lean rcd couttse I lbr both the Ilarties, vide irttpugrtccl cotttttrott ordcr- ciatcd 15.04.202i allowed the said applications on costs uith obscrr'ations that pal'ty cannot be pcnalized lbt thc nristukc ot otnissitttt orl thc pat't ol- l-ris/her counscll that the tinrc lirrrit lor lllirtg. \\'riLLen statement is not mandatoly, but ortlv clircctot.r: that dclcrltllltlt Nos.l ancl 2 have shor.vn sufl-rcient rcason artd cxu.'ptional circutnstances are lnade out 1bl non-tiling ol rhc u t'ittctt staLeLrcrrl iLr l-ill1e . Qtrestioning the said commot-t orclcr, thc l)lcscrlt I(ci'isions lrc illcd

9. Learncd counscl lbr the pctitionersi plairrtil-1s submittcd that on 20.07.2021. P.\\i-l \\Lrs cross e.ratnirrcci orr bchal1'o1'delendant Nos. I and I and lirnher'. tl-re suit rvcnL nunrbct ol'adjotrrnments and finally, on 23.12.2022 thc eviclcnce ol thc plrrintitf was closcd and on the same day, Lhc trial ('oLrlt hnvins- i-,bsclvcd that thc right of defcndant Nos. l, 2 ancl ,1 to lllc $'rittcn stirtcrrcnt was lbrfeited on ll .04.2019, posted thc suit lbl cvidcncc o1' dcl'cndant No.3, who tiled r.vritten statcrr)el)t. ltorrcvcr, on .iU.r) t.20li, del'endant No.3 I .1 LA'A, J (-RPlbs. /98-l { 1985 of 202-1 repoded nrl cYi(lc (.c i l(l hcncc. the suit \\iils l)osrc,.l t<t 01 .02.2023 for argumcrrts. nl lir,ri staqc. i.c.. at lhc lali :rl(l of tl-re suit, delendant Nos. I rrrrrl (r.lnrc r.lp rr ith thc ltrcscn .rpplications br blaming their cat licr.(.(runscl lor lacltes ancl dcljrtLl tl lins rl'ritten statement a.d tlrc't'{r',r.'. tlrc .caso.s pLrt ro'th lrr tlr,r'c.dant Nos. l and 2 for non-lllirrrt oi 1l1.. rrr.ittcu statcrr.ucnt ir tirrrc arc not plausible ancl i arrrrcrl lrc itcccptcd

9.1. Learrre..l corrrrscJ lrrr- pci iLiorrers lirr.thcr irrbruitte.cl that defendant N0s. I anrl I crl!a!lerl a Dc$ coutlse I u lrt ,.trrs s-.,xarnined the witness/cs *'lr. rr i'r'c craurinccl on bch.ll- oI t rr' plaintifr's and even at that staqc- dcllrtla.t Nos.I aud I dicl rr.t rrkc slcps to lile wntten stat.enl(lnt un(l rlrc atblcsaid apPlicaticrns u crc lilecl only when the suit u,as postcd 1br e rgLr tncnts. Learnccl counscl firrther submitted that dclcntl:rnt Nrrs.l ancl 2 crccltt statinrr that they are lay women atrcl ltar c rro knou lcc19c o1- lc'gal pr.occ,:iti1gs, Itaye not shown plausible rcas., l.r' .or-{lli.e ol- 1he rv.itrc, statelnent in time, howcvcr'. tltc lr-iul (ioLrr'1 11 11;-,..,,,, pr.oper.lv l1-1tr.cciating the above facts ancl r:lcrrr rrcqligcnr:c ancl laclrcs r)rl the part of defendant Nos.l ancl a llou,ccl the applicatiorr r on en'oneous observations tlrat iiclcrttl:rnt Nos. I and I har,c s.t\)\\.u sulttcient Ii ! ! I ) LNA, J ( RI'.n'os.1983 & t96s of2023 reason attd havc t-nade out c\ccl)tiollal e it-cutusiauces tbl non-filing of thc,,vrittcn statenlcnt in tirtrc. Lcatttecl eiitlnscl. thcrclirrc, prayed to a llorr thc [(cvisions bi sctt inu asiclu thc imprrgne d c ol'tllTl o11

10. Leatncd counscI tbr- r'csporlclcrlt Nos. i and 2/dc1'endar-rt Nos' I and 2 sr-rbnritted that dclirrcllrrtt Nos.I rtlcl f have ellgaged an advocate ri ho Iailcd to tjle u lrttcrt stilte lllorlt r'r'itl-rirl the prescribed period and hcncc, thcir [ight to Iilc \\ r'ltte r) staLctnent was lbrfeited, fbl no l'ault oI lacltes on [hc pitrL ol rlctcutianl Nos.l and 2. He lufthel sr.rbntittcd that delcritl.trtt \rrs.l :Lrrtl I being lay lvomen have no knori,lcclge ol lcgal plr-rcccclings ancl that non-liling of u,ritten statcnrcut has cante t() liglit orlll' on 21.12.2022 when the evidcnce on bchirll'of ptaintiils rrrts e lL.rsc.l rurd that inrmediately, defendant Nos. I and 2 lilecl Llrc rrlbr.csaicl t\\ o application along witli the rvrittcu statctneut to slrow thcil bona lrdes. tly contending thus, Iear-ncd counscl subnrittcil tlrat thc tr-itl CoLrrt lias rightly a[[ou,ed ihe apptications by taltirtq irtto conside]'a1ion the facts and circumstances ol thc casc attcl also t,re bona -lides ol' defendant Nos.l and 2 and hence, thcsc llcvisions bcing devoid ol'rnerits are liable to be disrnissccl. I I ! I I 1 i c AI : t I (, I-\A, J ( fl/'..\rr.I98J ii 1935 of 2023 x I 1. In sr-rpporl o1- his coutcntions, learned coun:.o Ii)t rcsllondent Nos.l and 2 r'clied trl-1on thc lirllirri ing judgmeuts:, (llGarnrertl Cro.ft l't. l'rrrliutlr (-hnnd Goel (2) K.Vohrnmtlti trtrl Otlt crs l.'s. Kttnutrcsan (3)PIC Deptrtnrcntols Pyt Ltrl lts. Srecleatht,rs Pt,t Ltd\ (4) B h o.gn' u n S r. t ro r t 1, l's. .l I o o I C I t u t t tl\ (5)Telengu Rot.ttirr l..s- I Iugrtr llutrtia' (6) Rn fi q l/s. llI u n sh i I u /' (7)S.Scnlhil I{unrtr l's. Susaati (8) Raituh I/s. t\urthLttr (9)Bharat l(trlo l,'s. Rui l(ishurt Chtbrte

12. In (iunnent Crr/i 's casc ( l'' citeci supra). rlr,.. I lorr'blc Apex Court held thaI thc I ligh ('otrrt ivhilc cxercisirlr llre :i ir l)e rvisol.\, jurisdiction under Articlc 7 ol'tlrc Constitution lnclia docs not act as a (lour1 of lrirst ,,\1-r|cal tct rc-appr.ecia.r. rc-\\ ciqh the lzozzy e scc rsr 1 ' 2025 SCC Online SC 985 3 2024 sCC Online sC 4082 o (1983) z scc 132 5 2006 scc orline ori 84 6 lrsery z scc zoa ' 2ozt 1 LW 829 812oos; + scc +ao -\9<022 SCC Ontine 5C 613 ii:y.! I,NA, J CRI',No!i,1983 & t9E5 oI2023 evidence or lacts, altd tllat thc port'et un(icr.Ariicle 227 has to be exercised sparinglr iti itpptopt-tlrLe crttes. I3. ln K.VulurmtLl/rl's casc (l'r ciLcti :Lrpla), the Hon'blc Apex Court hetd that thc port'ct' unclcr ArLicle ll'l of Constitution ol lndia is supcrvisory' ancl thc satllc cilllti()L Lrc irrr'okcd to tlsurp the oliginal julisciiction tl1'thc ('otrr-t rr llie h ir \.1'lis Io sttpervisc'

14. In PIC Depfinnrcntuls ['t't l-ltl'\ ci-rsL- (:]''r cited sLrpra), the Hon'ble Apcr (loult hrts cot'ttlottetl tlir .i,:l.r'. 'rl l7 \'ears in titing the written statelnent. In the seicl ease. it appt-als that in the official website of IIigh Cor.lt'1, thc stnttrs ol' th'-' strit rvas reflccted as 'disposed of on 0 i.0.1.2000'. horr cr ct, rlo :.LICIr oldcrs u'el e traced, hcnoe, the tlon'ble Apcx Ooult e otrdotrld Lire tlclal' of l7 )'cars in liling thc written statcnrcnt.

15. ln Bhngwan S*vuntop'> e rsc ( l'i 1 11g11 iLrpt'a). the Hon'ble Apex Courl observcd that irt l sLrit tot l;ul Litit-rrl, thc position of plaintiffs and defendants catt bc irrtcrchange ahle .

16. ln Tetengu Routia's casc (5'r' citcrl strprrr). the Fligh Court of Orissa has leiter-ated thc obscr',. ation of thc I lorl'ble Suprerne Court in Bhagwutr Swuroop's case !h.rt in a suit lbr partition, both the ptaintiff and defendant stand on si-urrc lootirrg. -', \ / I 8 I-NA, J ( fiP. ,\hs. / 98-] rt 1985 of 2023

17. In Rtfiq's casc ((rtr' citcd supra). tlrc I{orr,blc ,r\pex Cour-t observcd tltat an inncc-.ent part_\, caltnot be all,trved to sul.fbr injustice sinrpll'bccausc a clroscn ldvocatc has dc1:,ulted. i8. In S.Senthil I{unnr's casc (7tr' circd supra). the Fligh Court of Madras hcld tl.rat no litigant shall bc put to pr.e.ir.rr.Lice lbr thc I'au lt on parl of thc counscl.

19. ln Koilrtsh's casc (E'h citccl supr-a). tlrc IIo I .ric r\pcx Cour1 held tl-rat erxtcnsion oI tintc in llling the u,r.itteu :r:rtcrncn[ rnay be allou'cd, b1 in-rposin.u costs, i1- it is necded -o bq qiven fbr circurnstances rvliich are cxcclltioltal. occasiorrr:c[ bv reasons beyond the control o{'thc defendant ancl qravc ir.iLrslicc rvould be occasionecl i1-thc tinre u,as ltol cxtendcd.

20. ln Bhorot Ifulrt's case (9'r r:itcd srrpt.a). tltr 1161..,,111" 40"" Coufl reiteraled thc ltritrciple laid dou'n in Kailasl '., casc (g,r,cited supra) and held that dcla'v irr lllins. rvrittcn statente rr could not vcrv well be cotnpcnsatcd r.r,ith costs but dcnving the b,:r.cfit o1'tiling ol the written statetrent is unrcasonablc.

21. Apropos the abovc submissions made by ler r.ncd counsel fbr both the parties, the only point. that ariscs for. c:nsideration is whethel dc fendan[ Nos.l and 2 arc entitled to ir,drrlsence of this 9 I,NA, J CRI'.Nos.1983 & t985 of2023 Court in permitting thcm to tllc thc writlen statement, by setting aside the ordel dated 11 .04)AI9 o1'the trial ['ourt. r,n'hereunder their right to flle wlittcrr sIatcnrrr]L rr as [brlcit-crl.

22. Undisputably, dcl'cndant Nos. i and 2 camc up rvith two applications, one to rcopcn tlrc suit and lrnother to sct aside the order dated 17 .04.2019 and to rcc,-'ivc tltcir t'rittcn statenrct-tt. The said two applications rvcrc lilr'd r,r'hcn Lhc suit rvas posted for argumcnts. Flou,evcr', it is pclrincnt 10 notc thal irr t[re affidavit, fited in suppoft of tl.re said npplication. del-endant Nos. I and 2 averred that they are la)' womon ancl havc no knorvledge of iegal proceedings and they caLle [o l< no$' that tirc i| iight to file rvritten statement was forfeited in thc suit, only rr licrr llic sanrc li as pointed out by the trial Court while ihc suit t as posted lbr adducing evidence on belialf o1'thc dcicrrianrs

23. A close sclutiny ofrecord discioscs that delendant Nos.I and 2 filed the aforesaid applications withirL a period of tu,o weeks from the date of theil l<now icdqe- trbout thc orcler'. dated

17.04.2019, forfeiting their lighL to lllc rvritten statement. Thus, it appears that defendant Nos.1 and 2 acted with cliligence in taking t i I E * IO LNA,,J CR P.Nos.l983 & 1985 o-f 2021 \ steps and shou,ccl hcl bona flde case bt, filing , \,1 rtten statement along u.ith the alorcsaicl trlo applications

24. Irurl-hcr'. it is thc casc o1- dclendant Nos. I trncl 2 that they cntrusted thc rlaltcr to aLr advocate, horvcvcr, hc t.riled to infbrm thetn aboul lrling o[ririttcn statcrncut and as such. iir,rc to their lack of knori,lcctge o1- lcgal ploccedirrus. tl'rc rvriltcu strr.(,nrcnt could not be filcd in 1inre. rvhich lesulted ir-r passing of o:'t.cr by the trial Court fbrlciting thcir i'ight to wlittcn statenrcnt. i),:I'endant Nos. I and 2 have liLr.Lhei- :rsscltccl thaI r-ior-r-filine of u,r'i .t(]n sl-a[enleut in tiue was ncithcr u,ill1ul rlor wanton and thal" becar:e of delaull on the part of thcir ear'liel counsei. thcy would bc- 1',u . 10 in'eparable loss and iniury. r\ paltl i-c not cxpeclcd to colt.riinll) uronitoL his/her larvycr or attcnd Couft hearings oncc ther lrave cngzrgcd a lnq,yer to pr,rtforLh thcir casc.

25. Here, it is pcrlincnt to notc that thc presenr :;Lrit is filed fbr partition o1'thc suit schcdulc propcfly ar.rd thcrcfbr c in the light of thc proposition laid down by thc IIon'blc Sunrernc Cour.t in Bhagwan Sv'uroolt's casc, which rvas reiteratcd b.' 1te High Court of Orissa in Tetensu Rautia's case, it is to be no.cd that in a suit 'fo1. partition. the lrosition of the plaintilf and d,:lendanr can be LNA, J CRP-,Vos. /98J & 1985 of2023 interchangeablc and both stan(l on thc satne fboting' Irr other \\rords, it is iniplied that strbstlrrrtrrl riglrls of thc plaintitls akin to that ol clef-cndant Nos.l and 2 nle iur oir cd, which nccds to be protected, cvcrr though thcrc' arc strule te e itnical, llloccdr-rrtrl lapses.

26. Vieu,ed liorn thaL anglc ltlri also :ts pcr thc .judgrle nts of the Hon'ble Suprcmc Coult in RuJiris casc (r'itcd slrpra) ancl Ktilnsh's case (cited supra), ill thc itrstaul ciiie as therc is delault/ inaction/om ission on thc- part ol' thc c:rr licr ctlrttrsel engagcd by del-endant Nos. I and 2 in lbllor.r ing trp the suit plocecdings, def'endant Nos. I and 2-litigants shall not lrc made to sufTel or put to prejudice by being depLived ol thcil lir'.ht to clu^lbnd or putlbrth lhcir casc. 27 . Fuftherntore, as pel thc ploviso tLr Order VIII Rulc I CPC' the time limit l'or filing the writLcn statcrrrcllt is Ilot nratrdatory, but only directory. This provisiot-t ot'lau to$ulher u ith the obscn'ation made by the tlon'ble Supt'etnc Coirr-t itr llhtrat Kulrrr's case (cited supra), entitles the petitioner lbl condonrttion ol clclay in liling the written statcmcnt by impositiot.t ol'costs. :rs rvas right[1' helcl by thc trial Court in thc impugned cotrtmou ot cle , . ) 1,1\A, J CRI'. \ot. tg|-t tr t rti.; of 2A).1

28. As r-c-qards tltc rcliancc placed by lL_,rlr.nctl coLutscl for respolldcnt No. I on titc.juclgntcnts o1-thc I Ion,h c SLtprc_rne (,our.t iu Gonncnl ().zl's crsc (ci[ccl sp1111.-; tuttl K.l/olutrrirrl/lr.s clrsc (cited supra), lltc sunle ilt, not tclc\an1 to thc prcs,tr t clts!, since titis Cout-t u,hilc rcliudicati,it thc ,r.cscnt ller,isiors. tltc, qtrcsti., ol cithcr re-.P| r-sc iatirlr .r'ic-r'cigrrirrg thc c'idcnc: crocs ,ot ar.isc. 29. In rhc li-shr ol LIic lbr.cqoirrg r-casons a nrJ d isc rrss iolr, this 'r1' e ottsiclc.r'd opirion that the i,r,uer:ci c.r,uror.r ordcr passcd b' Lhe L'iar (',.u.r is .illioaar arrd as the r.r)ripor)(rcuts hcrein tailed to p{)inL out:tn\ cotrrl is i i lcgal irv ol cotnnlon orrlc.r.. this ( burl c.lecJines to intcrfere rvitlt :hc sarne. 30. In thc r.csLrit. thc llcr isiorr Peritions are disnrrs:cci. i t. Penciirrgl nrisccllaneous applications, il an.,., sl.rali stancl thc inrpugned in firn itv n closed. No:osts. SD/- V.KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ \ \ //TRUE COPY// SEcTIoN oFFICER To,

1. XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunrjerabad 2. One CC to SRI G ARUN, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to M/S SRIKANTH HARTHARAN, Advocate [OplJC] 4 One CC to SRI ZEESHAN ADAN MAHMOOD, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies k- SS/PSL , i I i i I I I .l HIGH COURT DATED:2310712025 COMMON ORDER ,, ii ll" g t.l 2tfi 2 " lr CRP.No.1983 & 1985 of 2023 ,4 t '-.ist ' DISMISSING BOTH THE C.R.P.s WITHOUT COSTS &*