The High Court · 2028

Sri. D.Raji Reddy, S/o Sri. Tirupathi Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ- Business, Resident of PIot No.46, Brundavan Colony, A.S.Rao Ndgar Colony, ECIL, Hyderabad, ...Petitioner/RespondenUDefendant No.6 AND

1. Sri Mandchala Bhalram, S/o Late Kistaiah, Aged about 40 years., Occ- Real Estate,R/o. Godumakunta Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Diskict (old Ranga Reddy District)

2. Smt. Rompi Sumalatha, Wo. R Krishna D/o. Late M. Kistaiah, Aged about 28 years, Occ- Agriculture, R/o. Jiyapally Village, Bibinagar Mandal, Nalgonda District.

3. Smt. Mandchala Nagamani, Wo Late Kistaiah, Agriculture R/o Godumakunta Village, Keesara District. 4g.o gpo1.tt 6p.vqa.rg.,. o9q-. Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri

4. Sri M. Narsing Rao, S/o. late M. Kistaiah, Aged about 26 years, Occ- Pvt.Teacher. R/o. H. No. 3-1 0, Godumakunta Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District (old R.R. District) ...Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs

5. Late Mandchala Kistaiah, died per L.R.S., 6. Sri.Manchal Pentaiah, S/o Manchala Gangaiah, Aged about 50 yrs., Occ- Real Estate, R"/o Godumakunta Village, Keesara Mandal, Medchal-Malkajgiri Diskict (old Ranga Reddy District).

7. B. Venkata Ramana Rao, S/o Late Gandaiah, Aged about 45 Years, Occ- Business, R/o H.No. 5-13, Krishna Nagar Colony, NeaTAPHB Colony, Moulali, Hydrabad-040

8. A Narsingrao, S/o Late AQ. Yellaiah, Aged About 68 Years, Occ- Business, Rl/o H.No. 10-5-691, Thukaramgate, North Lalaguda, Secundrabad.

9. Pulapally R.amu Yadav, S/o Balaiah, Aged about 55 Years, Occ- Business R/o H.Nd.30-265/60/5/1, Gokulnagar, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad.

10. Smt. Jakkula Manemma, Wo J.Venkanna, Aged about 48 years, Occ- Housewifer, R/o H.No.3-27l1, Godumakunta Village Keesara Mandal, Medchal-[[alkajgiri District.

11.Smt. Kalga Vasanth Arjun, Wo Sreehari Arjun Kumar, Aged about 46 years, Occ- Emp oyee, R/o H.No. 3-3-40, near Gokul Nagar, Ayyappa Swamy Temple Ramanthapur, Ambbrpet, Hyderabad. (Respondents 6 to 1 1 are not necessary parties to the Petition) ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants lA NO: 1 OF 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 to Stay of all further'proceedings in 1.A.No.981 of 2024 in O.S.No.7B0 of 2012 dated 151712025 on the file of the Il Additional Senior Civil Judge Court, Medchal- Malkajgiri, Distri<d at Kushaiguda pending disposal of the CRP in the interest of justice. Counsel for the l'etitioner: SRI T.V.R. VENKAT RAJU GOUD Counsel for the llespondents: -- The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSTITIMI BHATTACHARYA CTVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2866 0F 2025 Mr.T.V.R.Venkata Raju Goud, leamed counsel for the petitioner' ORDER

1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of an order dated L5.O7 .2025 passed by the II Additionat Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda (Trial Court') I.A.No.981 of 2024 in O.S.No.780 of 2OL2 fited by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 1O of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC') for enlargement of time ol 7OO days for filing ttre Written Statement.

2. By the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed thb petitioner's I.A. The petitioner is the defendant No'6 in the Suit filed by the respondents/ plaintilfs for partition and separate possession.

3. The only ground raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the delay was not of 7OO days but of less number of days. Counsel also submits that the Trial Court should have allowed the petitioner's application for condonation of delay in frling the Written Statement- / 2

4. The contention of counsel appearing for the petitioner is however belied by the Aflidavit frled by the petitioner in I.A.No.98l of 2024. Ihe last paragraph of the Affidavit specihcally mentions the delay of 7OO days.

5. The impugned order is a reasoned order. The Trial Court held that the reasons given by tJle petitioner/defendant No.6 for the inordirrate delay of 700 days is not satisfactory and that the only reaso:r mentioned is that the petitioner/defendant No.6 was out of statlon and could not file an LA. for condonation of delay with the Written Statement. The Trial Court was also of the view that condoning delay of 700 days would cau se miscarriage of justice and undue delay in Suit proceedings.

6. There is no reason to interfere with the impugned order since the Aflidavr t filed by the petitioner also does not contain any satisfactory reason for condonation of delay except that the petitioner vras out of station and hence could not attend the proceedings or hle Written Statement.

7. Under Order VIII Rule 1 of the CPC, the defendant shall lile a Written Statement of his/her defense within 3O days from the date of service of summons on him/her. The proviso to Order VIII Rule 'l \ 3 t of the CPC creates a window for the defendant to file a Written Statement within an additional period of 6O days but which shall not be later than 9O days from the date of service of summons. The Court must however record the reasons in writing for allowing the defendant to take the benefit of the proviso for filing the Written Statement beyond 30 days from the date of service of sumnons to him/her. Therefore, Order VIII Rule I of the CPC mandates that the Court cannot permit filing of a Written Statement beyond 3O+6O days from the date of service of summons.

8. In the facts of ttre present case, it is also evident that the petition liled by the petitioner/ defendant No.6 was under a wrong provision of law. The Court hence does not tind any merits in the Civil Revision Petition.

9. C.R.P.No.2866 of 2025 is accordingly dismissed in view of the above. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD'- L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASISSTANT REGISTRAR / //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ll Additional senior civil Judge, court Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda.

2. One CC to Sri T.V.R. Venkat Raju Goud, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies NVB,rySL Yy HIGH COIJRT DATED:2r,-10812025 ORDER CRP.No.2l!66 of 2025 \ata 2 3 JAl| ?026 )', * DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 6 .,dfur,