The High Court · 2025

4. Smt. G. Janaki, Wo. Gopala Krishnama Charyulu Aged about 68 years' Occ' neta. Service R/o. 10-3-3/15, East Manedpally, Secunderabad' ...PetitionerslDefendant No'1 to 4 AND 1 2 lnti Ramachandram, S/o. Late Venkatas$,amy Aged about 76 years, Occ iiito.-empovee, R/6. H. No. 1 -1 0-290 I 1 lB, Bhramnwadi, Beg umpet' Hyderabad' RespondenuPraintiff Karli Chandrashekar, S/o Keethappa, Aged about 57 ye Emolovee. Rl/o H. No.6-14/86, Piot No. 86, Rose Pride Da*rm'aiguda, Hyderabad -500 083 ars, Occ. Pvt Enclave, ...Respondent No.?Defendant No.5 (Respondent No.2 is a proforma party and no relief is claimed against them) \. \\ lA NO: I OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings in the OS No.159 ot2O23 pending on the file of Principal District Judge MedchalMalkajgiri District at Malkajgiri. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 193J !E2025 Peition Under Arlicle 227 of the Constituion of lndia aggreieved by the order dabd 25.03.2025 passed in lA No.263 ot 2O24 in OS No.l59 ot 2O23 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge,Medchal Malkajgiri District Between: Karli Chandrashekar, S/o Keethappa, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Pvt Employee, R/o H.No.6-14/86, Plot No. 86. Rose Pride Enclave, Dammaiguda, Hyderabad -- 500 083 AND

1. lnti Ramachandram, S/o. Late Venkataswamy Aged about 76 years, Occ. Retd. Employee, R/o. H.No. 1 -1 0 -2901 1 lB, Bhramnwadi, Begumpet, Hyderabad. ...PetitionerlDefendant No.5 ...RespondenUPlaintiff

2. Smt. Nekkanti Sharmila, Wo. N.V.S. Srinivas, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 24-89, Plot No.48, Vishnupuri Colony, Maklajgiri, Hyderabad.

3. C. Nagaramanjulu, S/o. C. Ramana Rao, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Business, H.No. 12-2-1367/1, Shanthi Nagar, North Lalaguda, Secunderabad- 500017.

4. Smt. Y. Rukumini, Wo. Y. Prabhakar Aged about 67 years, Occ. Housewife RJo. 1 1-2-128, Seetafalmandi, Secunderabad.

5. Smt. G. Janaki, Wo. Gopala Krishnama Charyulu, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Retd. Service R/o. 10-3-3/15, East Marredpally, Secunderabad. (Respondents No.z to 4 are proforma parties and no rellef as ctaimed against them) ...Respondents/Defendants No.l to 4 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all the proceedings in the OS No.159 of 2023 pending on the file of Court Principal District Judge Medchal Malkaigiri District at Malkajgiri. Counsel for the Petitioners in both Crps: SRIA.VENKATESH, Senior Counset REPRESENTING SRI K RAGHAVA RAMANA, Advocate counsel for the Respondents in both crps: sRl RAVINDER REDDY Muppu The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I I l; HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAYTLI C.R.P.Nos.1887 & 1938 OF 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in both the civil revision petitions is one and the same, they are being heard together and disposed of by way o[ this common order.

2. Aggrieved by the orders dated 25.03.2025 passed m I.A.Nos.61 and 263 of 2024 in O.S.No.159 of 2023 by the Principal Disuict and Sessions Judge-cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malk ig, District, Malkaigiri, the prescnr Civil Revision Petitions are filed.

3. Heard Sri A.Vcnkatesh, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Ii.ltaghava ltamzrna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri N[.Ravindcr Reddv, learned counsel appearing for the respondcnt.

4. It is the casc o[ the Pcririoners-defendants that eadier defendants N.s.3 ancl 4 havc filed o.s.No.1438 of 2008 and defendant No.5 Frlcd ().S.No.l-lB3 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Junior Civil .f udgc, Ntcdchat-Matkaigiri District, Malkafgiri, sccking pcrpctual iniunction against the respondent- plaintiff. ().S.No.1438 of 2008 was dismissed on 24.01.201,2 and i i i i I l, i' .' O.S.No.1483 of 2008 was allowed on 28.72.2011. Aggrieved by the dismissal of O.S.No.1438 of 2008, defendants 3 and 4 have preferred A.S.No.9O of 201,2 and aggrieved by allowing of O.S.No. 1483 of 2008, the plaintitf filed A.S.No.67 of 201,2 on the file of the XVI Additionat District Judge, Malkaigifi. The XVI Additional District Judge, uidc common fudgment and decree dated

25.02.2021 allowed A.S.No.90 of 2072, and dismissed A.S.No.67 of 20L2. Challenging the said common decree and iudgment in A.S.Nos.6J arrd 90 of 201,2, the plaintiff had apptoached this Court by filing S.A.Nos.113 and 11,4 of 2027. \U7hile arguing the sccr>nd appcals, the rcspondent-plaintiff sought to withdraw the second appeals with liberry to file comprehensive suit and accordingly, this Court pcrmitted thc respctndent-plaintiff to withdraw the sccond appcals with the aforesaid liberty uide cornmon iudgment dated

04.11 .2022. In pursuance o[ the same, the respondent-plaintiff has ()ncc again filed comprehensive suit for declaration and recoven' of pcrsscssion i.e., ().S.No.159 of 2023, wherein the petitioncrs clefendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.5 have filed two interl<rcutory applications i.e., I.A.No.61 of 2024 and 263 <tf 2024 3 seeking to reiect the plaint on rhe ground that the said suit is not muntunable because the respondent-plaintiff having failed earlier by dismissal of the suit filed by him for perpetual injunction, he cannot be pefmitted to file a separare suit seeking the very same relief. The said applicarions were dismissed by separate orders dated 25.03.2025. Hence, the present revisions are filed.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had contended that appropriare orders be passed in the revisions by setting aside the orders dated 25.03.2025 passed by the trial court in I.A.Nos.61 and 263 of 2024 and rcfcct the plaint on the ground that the suit itself is not maintainablc, or in the alternative, as the pleadings in the suir are complere, let the trial Court d"ispose of o.s.No.159 of 2023 as expediti.uslv as possible, otherwise, the respondent-plaintiff will filt: cascs ,nc afrer the orher against the petitioners, which is causing krt o[ inconvcnience tg the petitioners.

6. Learned counscl appcari.g for thc respondent-plaintiff had submitted that since the pleadings in rhe suit are complete, let the rial court dispose of ().s.Nc.r.159 of 2023, as expediriously as possible, after grving opp()rruniry to all the parties. \ t I i I i a -:i-..-". 4

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that as pleadings in the suit are completed and it is ripe for trial and disposal, both the Civil Revision Petitions can be disposed of directing the trial Courr ro dispose of o.S.No.159 of 2023, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of one l,ear flrom the date o[ receip t of a copy of this order, without bcing influcnccd by any of the observations made by this Court.

8. Accordingly, both the civil Revision Petitions are dispr>secl of. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closcd. SD/-A.SREENIVASA REDDY ,/ ASStsrArur neclCinln ,-- //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER ! To, 1' The princioar District.Judge, Medchar Markajgiri District 2. one CC to Sri I n_.onr"'H#;;r, Advgcate tOpUcI I ?'xi 33 3;$"'int"i-i"iir'iiloo,, novocite r5pucl ABK/PSL YY \ € !. I ; I t I I ' i l i I l I i I i { i i i ! j : I HIGH COURT DATED: OUOll2O25 \ COMiNON ORDER CRP Nos: 1887 AND 1938 OF 2025 ! ir i"' ,r.r..i )( 2ETCM ? ) t DISPOSING OF THE CRPs WTTHOUT COSTS *d"a G Yx.ffi i-\{ t :.1 ! I I