M/S Smt. S. A v. RATNAM

...RespondenURespondenUPlaintiff

3. Edumulla Sammaiah,, S/o Rajaiah, Occ. Agriculture, aged about 60 years, R/o lndiranagar Village of Huzurabad Mandal, Karimangar District. 4 Qogam Rajitha,, Wo Yadagiri, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Household, R/o Sirisedu Village of Ellandakunta Mandal, Kariniangar District. (Respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary Parties) ...RespondenUDefendants 2 and 3 lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'1 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 OS.336/2025 on the file o the Principal Senior Civil-Judge-Cum- Assistant Sessions Judge at HuzurabarJ pending disposal of the main revision and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S Smt.S.A.V.RATNAM Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3361 ol 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of ln,i a, against the order passed in 1.A.No.325 of 2025 in OS.No.336 of 202,j dated: 18-08-2025 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Ass r tant Sessions Judge at Huzurabad. Between: $qta$tq Veeralaxmi, Wo Rajanarsu, Aged about 60 r ears, R/o Shalapally, H/o.Chelpur Village of Huzurabad Mandal, Karimangar I istrict. ...Petitioners/Pe li ioners/Defendant-1. AND

1. Kalva Ragotham Reddy, S/o Sambashiva Reddy, Occ. I 2. Kalua Hymavathi, W/o Sambashiva Reddy, Aged aboul Agriculture griculture. 0 years, Occ. Both are R/o Shalapally, H/o Chelpur Village of Huzura I Karimnagar District. rd [\rlandal. ...Respondenl/ les po nd en UP la i n tiff

3. Edumulla Sammaiah, S/o Rajaiah, Occ. Agriculture, Ag: lndiranagar Village of Huzurabad Mandal, karimangar-t) 4 Qogam Rajitha, W/o Yadagiri, Aged about 38 years, Oc: Sirisedu Village of Ellandakunta tVlandal, Karirirangar D s i about 60 years, R/o strict. Household, R/o rict. (Respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary Parties) ... Res pondenUDt fendants 2 and 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S Smt. S. A. V. RATNAM Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared / /,/ /. ,:/ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3329 ot 2025 Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, against the order passed in 1.A.No.326 ot 2025 in OS.No.336 of 2025 dated: 18-08-2025 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Huzurabad. Between: Edumulla Sammaiah, S/o Rajaiah, Occ. Agriculture, aged about 60 years, R/o lndiranagar Village of Huzurabad Mandal, Karimangar District. ... Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendant-1. AND

1. Kalva Ragotham Reddy, Sio Sambashiva Reddy, Occ. Agriculture, 2. Kalva Hymavathi, Wo Sambashiva Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Agriculture. Both are R/o Karimnagar District Shalapally, H/o Chelpur Village of Huzurabad Mandal, ...Res pondenURespondenUPlaintiff

3. Salakala Veeralaxmi, Wo Rajanarsu, Aged about 60 years, Fi/o Shalapally H/o.Chelpur Village of Huzurabad Mandal, Karimangar District.

4. Bogam Rajitha, Wo Yadagiri, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Household, Rl/o Sirisedu Village of Ellandakunta Mandal, Karimangar District. (Respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary Parties) ... RespondenUDefendants 2 and 3 Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S Smt.S.A.V.RATNAM Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER t THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. T]. KARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PET TION Nos.3306. 3367 at 13329 of2025 l I COMMON ORDER: I{aving regard to the fact that the revision I ctirioners \\'ho are delcndants 1n the suit has fi1ccl perrtions c, rcccile the docr-rments and contestj.ng the impugncd ordct s passccl bv the learncd trial Coutt, these tevisions are considercrl, hc:rrd togcthet ancl are being disposed of by this common order

2. Thesc Civil Revision Petirions are trled r hallcnurtrg thc propriefi, o[ the order dated 18.08.2025 in I.,\.i\r r.]24, i25 and 326 of 2025 respectively in O.S.No.336 o[ 2[ll]'i passcd bv the lcarncd Senior Civil Judge-cr-rm-r\ssistant St ssions Judge, H rLzurabad. -1. Briefly stated, the relcvant tacrs c rhar thc pertirioners/defendants had filed an interloctttt n' apphcation lrcforc the tr-ial Court during the pcndenci; of rl t: srLit, sccking Icale of the Court to receir.e ccrtain documcnts t -:ntioncd irr the ? 2 petition in support of thcir case. The trial Court, after considering the materials on record, passcd the lnpugned order dismissing the application. Aggrieved therebv, the prcscnt rer.ision petition has been filed.

4.1,. Learned counscl for the revision pctitionels submits that the documents sought to bc produced are esscntial to sr-rbstantiate the pleadings of thc petitioners and arc necessatl' for an effective adjudication of the issues in contror-crsv bcnveen thc parties. It is further contended that the trial (-ourt ousht to have permitted the reception of the documcnts to ensurc that thc matter could be decided on its true mcrits. Horvever, counscl laLr-h, concedes that the application filcd before rhe tt-ial Cor,rrt s,as bercft of detailed reasons explaining the necessin o[ producing the documents at that stage and the trial Courr, f<rcusins on thts tcchnical deficiency, dismissed the application

4.2. Counsel thcreforc, prar.s that onc more opportunity be extended to the peritioners to approach thc trial Court by filing an t \ I 3 appropriate appLlcation afresh supported b1' r'alitl reasons. It is Furrher requested that thc trial Court may bc drect rd to consider such an application, it Eled, on its merits, in accorcl,r rce u'ith larv

5. H aving rcgard to the submissions advancc -' and rvlthout entcring into the merirs of the case, this Court onsiclcrs that, sirrcc tl're suit is still at the trial stage before th: prin-raw tacr frnding forum, it rvould be just and appropria tc ro crtend '.Ir-t opporrtrnitr- to thc petitioners to file a fresh applic,r itrn beiorc tl.rc rrial (.outt, dr-rly sctting out the reasons for seeki : 1 reccption oi rhc clocunrents. Granting such an opportunitt' at tl is sragc u.-oulcl n()t pre judicc the rights of the rcsPondents ant I r.otilcl, on the c()lrrrar\', sen'e thc ends of justice by enabling rht rrial (lourt rrr acljuclicarc the dispute comprehensively on its me n I

6. \ccorclingh,, the petitioners permi ttecl C) filc a ti'esh pcririon Lrefore the trial Court, setting forth c( ) I tnt 1:c2s()1rs 111 suPl)()rt o[ thc rclief sought. Upon such filing, thc t ial Court shall I & consider the applicauon on its own merits, in accordance with law, and pass appropriate orders expediriousiy. 7 With this direction, this civil rerrision peridons are disposed of. Thcre shall be no ordcr as ro cosrs I\{iscellaneous Petitions, pendirrg if anr', sl.rall srand closed SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,rt - SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessrons Judge at Huzurabad

2. One CC to Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies o- NVBipsl HIGH COURT DATED:1610912025 .ffi;i' (] O i 6 Jil 2[26 * i:.:l :, : I i\ ! 6 a ) .'/', COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.3306, 3361 and 3329 of 2025 DISPOSING THE ALL CIVIL REVISION I,ETITIONS (- a\ &