The High Court · 2025

.. Respondent/ Plaintiff

2. S.Govardhan, S/o late S. Satyanrayana, Aged about 38 years, Occ- Business, R/o Plot No.23, Hanuman Nagar, Karmanghat village, Saroornagar [Vandal, R.R District.

3. Gundala Balraj, S/o late Balaiah, Aged about 49 years, Occ- Agril., R/o H.No. 8-136/3, Ghatkesar village Mandal, R.R. District.

4. [\//s Sreeram Chits Pvt. Ltd, regd. Company,/ rep. by its foreman Office at 44 SD Road, Secunderabad. Having branch at Shivam, Hyderabad

5. Elizabeth Neena, W/o G. Surender, Aged about 50 years, Occ- housewife, 6. Esther Neetha,, D/o. M.Solomon Mallappa, Aged about 45 years, Occ- Pvt. Service,

7. Smt. Nirmala [\/allappa, Wo. Rev.Solomon Mallappa, Aged about 65 years, Occ- Retd. Employee, Respondents R5 to R7 All are R/o. H N0 11-5-327/6, Red Hills, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/ Respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4 to 7 *-:, IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in LA No. 447 of 2025 in U.S No. ii of 2016, on the Court of the Prl Junior Civil Judge -Cum- XIV Addl Judicial [\4agistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRl. GUNDARAM MANOJ GOUD Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI G. SUDHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 7: The Court made the following ORDER: .;:-:.::: a-YFW Page 1of 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSI{Y Civil Revision Petitioo No. 2637 of2o25 ORDER: The instalt Civil Revision Petition has been hled by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order d,ated,22.O7.2025 in I'A'No'429 of 2025 & I'A'No'447 of 2025 in O.S.No.S of 2016 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Xlv Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Ranga Reddy District, at Hayathnagar (for short' 'the impugned common order'f .

2. Heard Mr.Gundram Manoj Goud, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Mr. G. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Vide ttre impugned common order, the Trial Court dismissed the above I.A.s with costs.

4. The petitioner herein is defendant No'3' respondent No' 1 herein is plaintiff, and respondent Nos'2 and 3 are defendant Nos,1 ald 2, in the above suit' .- :ar&r '.::a' '-

5. Initia-lly, the suit was fi1ed by plaintiff under Order VII Rules 7 and 2 r/w Section 26 of Civil procedure Code, l90g seeking for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and also to declare the registered documents produced by the defenclarts as null a,d void in respect of the suit schedule property.

6. Pending suit, petitioner / defendalt No.3 herein has filed I.A.No.429 of 2025 in O.S.No.5 of 2O16 under Se,:tion 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to re-open the case for hling of written statement and to set aside ttLe petition under Order 9 Rule 7 of Code of Civit procedure, 1908; and also I.A.No.447 of 2025 in O.S.No.S of 2016 under Crder IX Rule VII read with Section 151 of Civil procedure, Code, 19Og praying the Trial court to set aside the ex parte order dated 25.71.2022 passed against petitioner / defendant No.3 in O.S.No.S of 2016 and to give him an opportunity to contest the suit.

7. After issualce of notice ald proper service of notice, the petitioner / defendant No.3 herein did not think it proper to represent the case before the Tria,l Court. Hence the Trial Court was left u,ith no other option but to proceed ex parte on

25.11.2022 against petitioner / defendart No.3 on account of non-appeararrce of the petitioner / defendant No.3 It is thereafter :::.'f:: " ";-r-6&1r;- that the instant two applicdrtions rt'EiC frled by FeEtidh€r defendarrt No.3 on Og.O7 '2025' However' vide common order the Trial Court has rejected the leading to filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition the impugned said two I.A.s *7 L,earned counsel for petitioner / defendant No'3 contended 8. that no prejudice as such would be camsed to respondent No' 1 / plaintiff if the Trial Court were to have allowed the above two I'A's artd permitted petitioner / defendant No'3 to contest the case on its merits. He further contended that petitioner / defendalt No'3 was not duly served notice and it was only recently when he visited the suit schedule Property that he came to know about the pendency of the suit at the behest of respondent No'l / plaintiff from the neighbours to the suit schedule proPerty; and it was thereafter that the above two applications were filed' and therefore the Trial court ought to have allowed the two applications considering the fact that non-appea-rzrnce of petitioner / defendant No.3 before the Trial Court was neittrer mala fide nor deliberate but for the bona hde reason that notice not have been served upon him'HefurthercontendedthatifthetwoapplicationsaIenot allowed and if petitioner / defendant No'3 is not permitted to contest the case on merits much prejudice would be caused to the -.r-G!'il+ interest of petitioner / defendant No.3, ald therefore prayed that in the larger interest of justice petitioner / defendant No.3 ought to have been gralted the opportunity to file a Vlritten Statement and permitted him to contest the case on merits.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.l / plaintiff, opposing the contentions of learned couns( l for petitioner /defendant No.3, contended that petitioner /def,--ndant No.3 was duly served notice and that the averments ma<[e in the instant revision are baseless ald only with a malafidc rntention to somehow drag on the proceedings before the 'trial Court. He further contended that even otherwise according to the averments made by petitioner / defendant No.3 that he carre to know about the proceedings in the suit when he visited the site of the suit schedule property is far from truth for the reason that as per the version of other respondents / defendants a.rcl also as per petitioner / defendant No.3, petitioner / delendant No.3 had already sold away the property to respondent / clefendant No.2 ald he in turn sold it to respondent / defendant. No. 1; and as such, the necessity for petitioner / defendant No.it to visit the suit premises does not seem to be in aly way genuine. and therefore prayed this Court that the instant Revision mav br. clismissed. * t'{,t* ...a: x.:rr.!!:-"iL.et lo.Havingheardthecontentions.purft'rthoneitheflsl6eel{t1.6fi.. a query put forth to the learned counsel for petitioner / defendant No.3, learned counsel for petitioner /defendant No'3 admitted that petitioner / defendant No.3 had already sold away the property and the property further had been sold to another person' In the said factual backdrop, there does not seem to be any occasion for petitioner / defendant No.3 to have visited the suit schedule property and to have enquired about the same from neighbours to the suit schedule ProPertY.

11. Another aspect which is reflected from the proceedings is that trial itself has travelled quite far and the evidence of respondents /defendants was also closed ald the matter is posted for final arguments in the suit, and till now the matter stood posted on various occasions on some or the other I'A's which have been filed by respondent / defendant Nos' 1 and 2 and petitioner / defendant No.3 had now abruptly entered appearance and sought for re-opening of the case' L2. Given the said factua-l backdrop, this Court does not have any hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the Trial Court has rightly proceeded with the matter and has also rightly decided the above two I.A.s by dismissing the same' Even otherwise' since l '::i' the stand of the respondents a-11 along was that :he suit scheduie property has been sold by petitioner / deiendant No.3 to respondent / defendant No.2 and thereafter it has further got sold to respondent / defendant No.1, no prejudice whatsoever would be caused to the interest of present petitioner / defendant No.3.

13. For all the a-foresaid reasons, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned common order passed by the Trial Court does not warrant interference bv this Court under Article 227 ol the Constitution of India. Therefore, the instant Civil Revision Petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

14. As a consequence, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL )EPUTY REGISTRAR i\ \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Junior civil Judge -cum- XIV Additional Judicial lvlagistrate of First Clasd, Ranga Reddy District at Hayathnagar' 2 One CC to SRl. GUNDARATM IVANOJ GOUD' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI G. SUDHAKAR REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies kul,'PS [. $, HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2637 of 2025 :l L', \. ct : 10 sEP 206 , il 7.) 'ii. ?, \):.r,- \\ ^{ g lD T DISMISSING 1'l{E CIVIL ITEVISION PIITITION \\IITIIOLJl'C]OS1-S