The High Court · 2025

2. Jaman Jyothi Srihari (Died L.R. are on record), S/o. Late J. Sathyanaranya, aged about 82 years, Occ. Business, Rio. H.No 22 -2-262 and 22-2-263, Balsethi Kheth, Noor Khan Bazar, Hyderabad-24. T.S.

3. J.Omprakash., S/o. Jaman Jyothi Srihari, aged about 51 years Occ. Business. R/o. Flat No.404 in Premises No.1 6-1 1 -1 . Akhil Towers, Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad-36, T.S.

4. J. Satyanarayana,, S/o. Jaman Jyothi Srihari, aged about 46 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.22-2-262 and 22-2-263, Balsethi Kheth, Noor Khan Bazar. Hyderabad-Z4. ... Respondent No.2

5. S.Ra.jkumari, Wo. S. Sathyanarayan. aged about 52 years, Occ. Household, Rio.H.No.1-1-768 Gandhi Nagar, Near Canar Bank, Hyderabad. T.S. ...Respondent No.4 ...Respondent No.5

6. Chavan Rukmuni, Wio. Chavan Datta Namaji, aged about 50 years, Occ. Household. R/o.H.No.4-1-'121lA, VST Colony, Nacharama, Kapra, Ranga Rddy District-62 T.S. ...Respondent N o.6/Res po n d e nts/Defe n d a n ts lA NO: 1 OF 202s 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 grant stay all further proceedings in I A.No.22BB of 2024 in 0.S.No.298/20 15 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above Revisron. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI R.A.ACHUTHANAND Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6: None appeared CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3243 OF 2025 Petition under Arlrcle 227 constitution of lndia against the Order dated 29-07- 2025in 1A.No.2288 of 2024 in O.S.No.29B ol 2015 on the file of the Court of the X Additional Chief Judge. City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Between: J. Om Prakash, S/o Jaman Jyothi Srihari, aged about 57 Business, R/o Flat No. 404 in premises No. 16-1 1-1 , 4th floor, A Saleemnagar Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad ears, Occ. hil Towers, v k . Petitioner/Res pondent No.2/Defendant No.2 AND

1. K. lndravati. D/o J.J. Sri Hari, aged about 50 years, Occ. Household, Rlo 22- 240 lo 44,lnside Dabirpura, Komatwadi, Hyderabad.

2. J.J. Srihari (Died) per L Rs, Hyderabad 3. J.Ramesh, S/o J.J. Srihari, aged about 48 years, Occ. Business, Rt/o H.Nos. 22-2-262 and 22-2-263, Balsetti Kheth. Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad 4. J. Satyanarayana, S/o Jaman Jyothi Srihari, aged about46 years, Occ. Business. R/o H.Nos 22-2-262 and 22-2-263, Balsetti Kheth, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad.

5. S.Rajkumari, Wo S.Sathyanarayana, aged about 52 years, Occ. Household, H.No. 1-1-768/1,Gandhi Nagar. Near Canara Bank, Hyderabad.

6. Chavan Rukmuni, Wo Chavan Datta Namaji, Aged about 50 years, Occ. Husehold, Rlo 4-1-1211A, VST Colony, Nacharah, Kapra, Rahgareddy District (Respondent No. 2 to 6 are not necessary party) ...Respondents/Petitioner/Respondents/Plaintiff/Defendants 3 to 6 lA NO: 'f 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 all further proceedings in O.S.No.298 of 2O15 on the file of the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the above C.R.P. in the inte rest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRATUSHA BOPPANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI R.A.ACHUTHANAND Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 6: None appeared The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.3163 of 2O2S Civil Revision Petition No.3243 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue arising out of the instant Civil Rer,ision Pctitions is one ald the same, they are being heard and deciile d irv this Common Order

2. HearC IvIr. \rtn liatram Recldl,' Maltur, learned counsel for the petitioncr rn Civil Revision Petition No.3163 of 2025, Ms. Pratusha Bopanna, learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No.3243 of '20251' artd Mr. R.A Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respond'ents in both the Revisions. 3, The instant Civil Revision Petitions have been filed bv the petitioners assailing the order dated 29 .O7 .2025 in Interlocutor) Application No.2288 of 2024 in O.S.No.29B of 20 15 passecl by thc X Additionai Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hl,derabad {for short, the'impugned order')

4. The above I.A. was filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff) herein under Section 148 of Civil procedure Code, 190g praying the Triai Court to condone the deiay of thirty_one ) PSK,J crp_3161&1241_2o25 (3 1) days in compiying with the order dated 05. 11.2024 in I.A.Nos.471 and 472 of 2024 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

5. Vide Lhc impugned order, the Trial Court allorved the above application and condoned the delay of (3 1) da,r's in compi_ving u.ith the order, dated O5.I1.2024 in I.A.Nos.47 I and 472 of 2024 passed by' the X Additional Chief Judge, Cit], Civil Court, zrt Hyderabad, by respondent No.l (plaintiff .

6. Aggrieved, the instant Revisions have been liled b_v the petitioners. Civil Revision Petition No.3163 of 2025 l:

7. Learned counsel lor the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) in Civil Revision Petition No.3163 of 2025 informed the Court that costs rvhich were paid to the petitioner herein, and therefore submitted there is no scope left for adjudication in the instant Civil Revision Petition.

8. In view of above submission, the Civil Revision Petition No.3163 of '2025 stands dismissed. No costs 3:: PSK,J crP _3163&)24) _2025 Civil Revision Petition No.3243 of 2O25 :'.

9. So far as Civil Revision Petition No.3243 of 2025 is concerned, learneci counscl for resporrdent No.1 (plaintiff) submitted that in attempting to pay' the costs as directed b1' tl-re Trial Court rn its impugned order, the petitioner refused to accept the costs on the ground of intention to challenge the order.

10. A bare perusal of the docket proceedings would go to show that the suit had been unnecessaril], getting lingered on frivolous grounds without any strong reason. Though I.A.No.472 of 2024 in O.S.No.298 of 20 15 was allowed with costs on 05.11.2024, the respondents herein had a right to file written statement, if an-y, and if they u,ould have filed it by now the suit would have been proceeded substantially. The suit is one which was filed in the year 2015, i.e., more than 10 vears ago, and still at this juncture, the respondents seem to be aggrieved of the impugned order, i.e., the order of extension of time that was granted by the Trial Court to respondent No.1 (plaintiff| for depositing the \ costs. Surprisingl-y, there r.l,as no challenge to the allowing of I.A.Nos.47t and 472 of 2024 in O.S.No.29g of 2015 on 05.lL.2024 by the petitioners herein. It is only that I P5K,] crp 3161&3241 2025 portion where costs could not have been deposited by respondent No. I (plaintiff) for whatever be the reason, that portion of the order stood allowed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order by gralting further extension of time for depositing rhe cost s.

11. Therefore, in the opinior-r of this Ccurt, no strong case has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference to the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition No.3243 of 2025 faiis and the same desen,es to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. L2. This court further directs that, if the petitioners herein intend to file aly consequential written statement, they may do so forthwith and without arry further delay. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall proceed and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.

13. As a sequei, miscellaneous appiications pending if ax,v in these Revisions. shall slAl1d close.l - i/TRUE COPY// SD/. N SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR d SECTION OFFICER \ To, '1. The X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad' 2. One CC to SRI VENKATRAM REDDY MANTUR' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI R A. ACHUTHANAND, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies € HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 COMMON ORDER j C) . lHE Sih ,.;:\\ tK- . \ 1o rrB 2026 il tu-PU- CRP.Nos.3163 and 3243 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE BOTH CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS D