The High Court · 2025

...RespondenUPetitioner/Plaintiff

2. Mirvala Venkata Naravana Rao, S/o. bhina Ramaiah Aged about 63 Years oc6. Retd Employee, it/o. D No. 1-54117 (G2 ) Surya Nivas, Madhava Enclave Madeenaguda, Hyderabad

3. Dammalapati Nagalakshmi, Wo. Mohana Krishna Aged about 58 Years Occ. Household R/o. flot No. 129 Phase - ITNGOs Colony Near Q City Gachi Bowli Hyderabad.

4. Miryala Chandrakala, Wo. Nagendra Prasad Aged about 55 Years Occ. Teacher R/o. Plot No. 497 Phase - ITNGOs Colony Near Q City Gachi Bowli Hyderabad.

5. Kolishetty Vijaya Lakshmi, W/o. Somaiah Aged about 52 Years Occ. Teacher Government High School Burgampahad Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem District. (RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 5 ARE NOT NECESSAR'r pARTtES) ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 2 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 of all further proceedings OS No. 28 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, Suryapet District pending disposal of the main C.R.P. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2015 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 ol the constitution of lndia against the Order and decree dated 16.04.2025 passed in lA No. 2'l 3 ol 2025 in C,S No. 28 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, Suryapet District. Between:

1. Miryala Naga Rani, Wo. Venkata Narayana Rao, Aged about 57 Years Occ. Housewife, R/o. H No. 1-54117( G2), Surya Nivas, Madhava Enclave, lVladinaguda, Hyderabad.

2. Miryala Nikhil, S/o. Venkata Narayana Rao, Aged about 31 Years Occ Student, R/o. H No. 1-54117( G2), Surya Nivas Madhava Enctave, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. Represented by his Power of Attorney Holder Miryala Akhil S/o. Venkata Narayana Rao Aged aboul2T Years Occ. Student, R/o. H No. 1-54117( G2), Surya Madhava Enclave, Madinaguda, Hyderabad 3. Miryala Akhil, S/o. Venkata Narayana Rao, AgecL about 27 Years Occ. Student, R/o. H No. 1-54117( G2), Surya Nivas, Madhava Enclave, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. Petitioner No.3 is permitted as GPA Holder to Petitioner No.2 as per court orderdated 26-06-2025 vide l.A.No. 1 of 2025 in CRP.No.'1968of 2025. .,.Petitioner/Respondent AND Miryala ( Dammalapati ) Koti Ratnam Wo. Vishnu Vardhan, Aged about 64 Years Occ. Retd Employee Plot No. 22 Phase I TNG()s Colony Near Q City Gachi Bowli Hyderabad. ... ResporrdenUPetitioner/Plai ntiff

2. Miryala Venkata Narayana Rao, S/o. Ohina Ramaiah Ag Occ. Retd Employee, R/o. D No. 1-54117 (G2 ) Surya N Enclave Madeenaguda, Hyderabad ed about 63 Years ivas, Madhava 3 Dammalapati Nagalakshmi, Wo. Mohpna Krishna Aged about 58 Years Occ Household R/o. Plot No. 129 Phase - | TNGOs Colony Near Q City Gachi Bowli Hyderabad.

4. Miryala Chandrakala, Wo. Nagendra Prasad Aged about 55 Years Occ. Teacher R/o. Plot No. 497 Phase- | Tl'i'lGOs Colony Near Q City Gachi Bowli Hyderabad. 5. Kolishetty Vij Government District. aya Lakshmi, Wo. Somaiah Aged about 52 Years Occ. Teacher High School Burgampahf,d Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem (RESP.NDENT Nos 2 ro 5 ARE lA NO:2 OF 2025 :;::::"':::"il::"':,,"fendant 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 of all further proceedings OS No.28 of 200[ on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, Suryapet District pelnding disposal of the main C.R.P. crvrL REVrsroN PETTTToN No'. 2137OE2025 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the congtitution of lndia against the Order and decree dated 17 .04.2025 passed in lA No. 2ll4 of 2025 in OS No. 28 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at $uryapet, Suryapet District. Between: 1 2 3 Miryala Naga Rani, Wo. Venkata Narfayana Rao, Aged about 57 Years Occ. Housewife, Rio. H No. 1-54117( G2), Surya Nivas, Madhava Enclave, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. Miryala Nikhil, S/o. Venkata Narayana Rao, Aged about 3'1 Years Occ. Student, R/o. H No. 1-54117( G2), Surya Nivas, Madhava Enclave, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. Represented by his Power of Attorney Holder Miryala Akhil S/o. Venkata Narayana ftao Aged about 27 Years Occ. Student, R/o. H. No. 1-54117( G2), Surya Nlvas, Madhava Enclave, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. Miryala Akhil, S/o. Venkata Narayana Rao, Aged aboul 27 Years Occ. Student, R/o. H No. 1-54117( G2), Surya Nivas, Madhava Enclave, Madinaguda, Hyderabad. ...Petitioners/Respoldent Nos.5 to 7/Defendant Nos.5 to 7 AND

1. Miryala ( Dammalapati ) Koti Ratnam, Wio. Vishnu Vardhan Aged about 64 Years Occ. Retd Employee Plot No. J2 Phase I TNGOs Colony Near Q City Gachi Bowli Hyderabad. ...Respon denUPetitioner/Plaintiff

2. Miryala Venkata Narayana Rao, S/o. China Ramaiah Aged about 63 Years Occ. Retd Employee, R"/o. D No. 1-54117 ( G2 ) Suryzt Ntvas, Madhava Enclave Madeenaguda, Hyderabad

3. Dammalapati Nagalakshmi, Wo. Mohana Krishna Aged about 58 Years Occ. Household R/o. Plot No. 129 Phase - I TNGOs Colony Near Q City Gachi Bowli Hyderabad.

4. Miryala Chandrakala, Wo. Nagendra Prasad Aged about 55 Years Occ. Teacher R/o. Plot No. 497 Phase - ITNGOs Colony- lJear Q City Gachi Bowli Hyderabad.

5. Kolishetty Vijaya Lakshmi, Wo. Somaiah Aged aboul 52 Years Occ. Teacher Government High School Burgampahad Mandal, Badradri Kothagudem District. (RESPONDENT NOS-2 TO 5 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES) ...Respondents/Respondents No.1 to 4/Defendants No.1 to 4 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Order 3(2) (a) of CPC praying that in 1:he circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High C;ourt may be pleased to permit the petitioner 3rd herein to file the present CR[) on behalf of the 2nd petitioner herein being as a Power of Attorney Holder. lA NO: 2 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 of all further proceedings OS No. 28 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, Suryapet District pending disposal of the main C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioners in all CRPs : SRI VEDULA SRINIVAS representing SRI KOPPULA GOPAL Counsel for the Respondents in all CRPs : SRI J ASHVINI KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER 4 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUgTtCE JUVVADISRIDEV| CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 968 2015 & 2137 ot 2025 COMMON ORDER Since these three Civili Revision Petitions are interlinked with each other and tfe parties are one and the same, these matters are being disposed of by way of common order

02. The Civil Revision Pelition No.1968 of 2025 filed by the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as the defendants Nos5 to 7 in the suit, assailing tfie Order dated 19.03.2025 passed in l.A No 164 of 2025 in 0.S.No.28 of 2001 by the learned Senior Ci'ril Judge, Sqryapet, Suryapet District (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court'). By the said order, the learned trial Court allowed An application filed under Order I Rule 10 read with Order Vl Rule 17 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC'), seeking impleadment and amendnlent

03. The Civil Revision Petiltion No.2137 of 2025 filed by the petitioners herein, who are prrayed as the defendants Nos 5 to 7 in the suit, challEnging the Order dated 1

17.042025 passed rn lA.No 214 of 2025 in O S No.28 of 2001 by the learned trial Court. By the said order, the learned trial Court allowed an application filed under Order Vl Rule 17 read with Section 15r of CPC, seeking amendment of the plaint by incorporating additional para,;raphs

04. The Civil Revisron Petition No 2015 of 2025 filed by the petitioners herein, who are arrayed as the defendants Nos 5 to 7 in the suit, challenging the Order dated

16.04.2025 passed in lA No 213 of 2025 in O S No.28 of 2001 by the learned trial Court. By the said order, the learned trial Court dismissed an application filed under Order Vll Rule 11 (a) and (d) read with Secti,rn 15'1 of CPC, seeking to reject the plaint 05 Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Koppula Gopal, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri J.Ashwini Kumar, leiarned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material available on record

06. During the course of submissions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsel for the respondents, subm tted that they are not aggrieved by the orderq dated 19.03.2025 and

17.04.2025, whereby the petitionBrs herein were impleaded as defendants in the main suit and the plaint was permitted to be amended by incorporating certain paragraphs. lt was contended by the learned SeniorlCounsel for the petitioners that the learned trial Court comn'iitted a grave irregularity in deciding the application for rejection of the plaint prior to the disposal of the application for amendment of the plaint Thereby, the said order is prematqre and prayed to set aside the same. The learned counpel for the respondents expressed no objection to the said request and sought for remand of the matter to the ledrned trial Court for fresh consideration of the said applicption, with a direction to dispose of the same expeditiousfy within a stipulated time

07. During the course of submissions, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, as well as the learned counsel for the responde ,.l,., submitted that they are not aggrieved by the orders dated 19.O3.2025 and

17.042025, whereby the petitionqrs herein were impleaded as defendants in the main suit anbl the plaint was permitted 4 '4 'ia to be amended by incorporating certain paragraphs However, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners contended that the learned trial Courl cornmitted a grave irregularity tn deciding the application filed under Order Vll Rule 11 CPC for re.lection of the plaint prior to the disposal of the application seeking amendment of the plaint, thereby the said order is premature. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the impugned order The learned crtunsel for the respondents raised no objection to the said request and submitted that the matter may be remanderd to the learned trial Court for fresh consideration of the application, with a direction to dispose of the same expeditiously within a stipulated time f rame

08. This Court had taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel of the both sides

09. On a perusal of the impugned orders dated

19.03.2025 and 17.O4.2025, whereby the petitioners herein were impleaded as defendants in the main suit and the plaint was permitted to be amended by incc,rporating certain paragraphs, it is evident that neither party has contended 5 that any new case has been intrQduced by virtue of the said amendment or impleadment. Even though certain paragraphs were added to the plaint consequent to the impleadment of the petitioners, rlo prejudice is likely to be caused to either side, as both parties will have sufficient opportunity during the course iof trial to advance their respective contentions at the stagp of adjudication of issues. Therefore, this Court finds no illeQality or material irregularity in the orders dated 19 03.2025 and 17 04.2025 passed by the learned trial Court. Accord there are no valid grounds to interfere with the gaid orders. Hence, Civil Revision Petition Nos. '1 968 and 21\37 of 2025 are liable to be dismissed

10. ln view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and having regard to the faOt that the application filed under Order Vll Rule 11 CPC was decided prior to the disposal of the application seekin{ amendment of the plaint, this Court is of the considered opiqrion that, in order to meet I I the ends of justice and in light of [he procedural irregularity committed by the learned trial the Order dated Court

16.04.2025 passed tn 1.A.No.213 of 2025 in O.S.No.28 of 6 2001 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the same is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded tr: the learned trial Court for fresh consideration of the said application, which shall be dtsposed of within a period of fiftee,n (15) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further made clear that the learned trial Court shall dr=cide the matter independently and shall not be influenced, in any manner whatsoever, by any of the observations made in this order 11 With the above observations arrd directions, the Civil Revision Petition No.2015 of 2025 is disposed of. The Civil Revision Petition No.1968 and 2137 of 2025 are dismissed There shall be no order as to ccsts As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD'.L.LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR 1 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Suryapet, Suryapet District' 2. One CC to SRI KOPPULA GOPAL, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI J ASHVINI KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ADK,NVB W HIGH COURT DATED:2910812025 COMMON ORDER CRP.No.1968, 2015 AND 2137 of 20 ;i)\ l l,: c (11...' ,..,-1. .).'. tl1q:c 2t25 'i \\ f'; ij I U. ) _) h 1 a,. ,,r!.{t -,li -:':-- DISPOSING OF THE CRP NO.2015 0F 2025 AND DISMISSING THE CRP Nos. 1968 AND 2137 0F 2025 WITHOUT COSTS L q