M.Sanjeeva Reddy v. 1. C.Pushpa Yadav

7. Smt.Vinodamma, Wio late M. Pratap Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Housewife, No 12-2-422128, Priya colony Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. B. M.Abhijith Reddy, S/o late M.Pratap Reddy, Aged 36 years, Occ. Advocate, No 12-2-422128, Priya colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

9. M. Rishmitha Reddy, W/o late M.Pratap Reddy, aged about 32 years, Occ. Housewife , No 12-2-422128, Piya colony, Gudimalkapur Hyderabad.

10. M. Bhupal Reddy, S/o late Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 50 years, Occ. Business No 12-2-425, Priya colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. '1 '1 . M.Venkata Ranga Reddy, S/o late Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 50 years, Occ. Business No 12-2-425, Priya colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

12.lvl.Ranga Reddy, S/o late M.Venkat Reddy aged about 47 years, Occ. Business No 12-2-425, Priya colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. 1 3. Amar Singh, Sro Lokman Singh, Aged about 67 years, Occ. Business, F/o 13-4-40, Karwan Near Mahankali Temple, Hyderabad.

14.Devara Karunakar, S/o D.tVlanikyam, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Business, Fyo I 3-6-458/1 8, Street No.'1 0 Gayathrinagar, Shivabagh, Hyderabad. ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

15. M.Narender reddy (Died), 16. M.Hanmanth Reddy, S/o ramnarasimha reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business No 12-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

17. M.Parijatham, W/o M.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, N o 12-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. '1 B.lM.Vani, D/o D.t/enkat Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Housewife, No 1 2-2-425, ()udimalkapur, Hyderabad.

19. M.Pavani, D/o D.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ. Housewife, No 1 2-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

20. M.Mahadevi, D/o D.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 36 years. Occ. Housewife, N o 1 2-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS NO. 2 TO 7 lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition filed under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidav t filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all fr.rrther proceedings in O.S. No. 245 of 2014 on the file of Honorable XVll Senior Civil Judge City Civil. Court at Hyderabad pending further orders in the Civil revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. CHETLURU SREENTVAS Counsel forthe Respondent No. 1: SRl. B SHASHIDHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2694 OF 2022 Petition filed urrder Nlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances slated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to call for records in respect of orders dated 21 .10.2022 passed in l.A.No.66/2022 in O.S.No.24512014, set aside the orders dated 21 .10.2022 passed in l.A.No.66/2022 in O.S.No.245l2O14 and allow the same. I I Between: lVl.Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o Late Ram Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Business, Fi/o flat No.101, Sri Rama Residency, Plot No.76 and 77 Ptiya colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER AND 1 . C.Pushpa Yadav, S/o C.Krishna Yadav, Aged about 62 years, Fl/o H.No. 1 2-2-5651 N7, Mandulaguda, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

2. Smt.Arunamma, Wo late M.Sudershan Reddy, Aged about 65 years, .... RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF Occ. Housewife, No 12-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

3. K.Keshava Reddy, Sio late M.Sudershan Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ. Housewife, Rlo 12-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

4. M.Srinivas Reddy, S/o late M.Sudershan Reddy, Aged about 54 years, Occ. Business, Rlo 12-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

5. M.Anuradha Reddy, S/o late M.Sudershan Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Housewif e, No 12-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

6. M.Radhika Reddy, D/o late M.Sudershan Reddy, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Housewife,No 12-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

7. Smt.Vinodamma, W/o late M. Pratap Reddy, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Housewif e, No 12-2-422128, Priya colony Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. B. M.Abhuith Reddy, S/o late M.Pratap Reddy, Aged 36 years, Occ. Advocate, No 12-2-422128, Priya colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

9. M. Rishmitha Reddy, w/o late M.Pratap Reddy, aged about 32 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl o 1 2-2-4221 28, P riy a colbny, Gud imalkapur Hyderabad.

10. M. Bhupal Reddy, S/o late Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 50 years, Occ. Business No 12-2-425, Priya colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. 'l 1. M.Venkata Ranga Reddy, S/o late Ramakrishna Reddy, aged about 50 years, Occ. Business No 12-2-425, Priya colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

12. M.Ranga Reddy, S/o late M.Venkat Reddy aged about 47 years, Occ. Business,No 12-2-425, Priya colony, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. 13.Amar Singh, S/o Lokman Singh, Aged about 67 years, Occ. Business, R/o '13-4-40, Karwan Near lvlahankali Temple, Hyderabad.

14.Devaft Karunakar, S/o D.Manikyam, Aged about 57 years, Occ. Business, R/o 13-6-458/18, Street No.10 Gayathrinagar, Shivabagh, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

15. M.Narender reddy (Died), Hyderabad. 16.M.Hanmanth Reddy, S/o ramnarasimha reddy, Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business No 12-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

17. M.Parijatham, Wo M.Venkat Reddy,Aged about 58 years, Occ. Business, N o 1 2-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

18. M.Vani, Dio D.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Housewife, N o 1 2-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

19.M.Pavani, D/o D.Venkat Reddy, Aged aboul42 years, Occ. Housewife, No 12-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad.

20. M.f\/ahadevi, D/o D.Venkat Reddy, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Housewife, No 12-2-425, Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition filed 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. 245 of 2014 on the file of XVII Senior Civil Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad pending further orders in the Civil revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. CHETLURU SREENIVAS Counselforthe RespondentNo. 1: SRl. B SHASHIDHAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE TIONOURABLE DT.JUSTICE G.RADI{A ITANI CM REVISION PETITION Nos.2691 AND 2694 OF 2022 COMMON ORDER: Ihese Civil Revision Petitions are lrled' b1' the petition:r" defendant No.l aggrieved by the order daied 21.10.2022 passed in I.A. Nos.65 and 66 of 2022 in O.S. No.245 of 2014. respectively, on the file of XVII Senior Civil Judge, City (lilil Courl. Ll),de.u,,,uU ,',.,' dismissing the petitions filed by him urider iiection 15 [ of CPC io .r:i aside the order dated 26.10.2021, esche,.ring his er idence anci to permit him to lead evidence.

2. Heard Sri Ciictluri Srirrivas. learned counscl lor iii.- petitioner-defendant No.1 and Sri B. Sasiridhar. leattted cotrnsel lirr the respondent No. l-ptaintiff .

3. The leamed counseI fbr the pr:l-ition er-tieii:, t.1ut, ]rl,-;. i submitted that the respondent No. I -plaintiff fi led the suii tbr pe..i.-etrral injunction in respect of the suit property. A fiei service of sut.ttt'tt<xr:s. the defendants were contestirtg the suit b-v iiling their *'rittctr statement and participrting in the 1:roi:ectlings. l-he cvidence iil respondent No.1-plaintiff r,"'as contpletecl acil ttre rnatter rvas postecl 7 Dt.GRR.! CRP Nos269 I &2591 oJ2022 for the chief-er amination of DW.1 and it was coming for marking of documents on ihe side of the defendants on 26.10.2021, but due to bonafide rnistake rvith legard to noting the date of hearing of the nratter as 26.11.2021 in the diary, the matter could not be represented, which lesulted in non-representation and eschewing the evidence of DW.l. The irt sence of the petitioner on 26.10.2021 was due to oversight and humar, error. Thc petitioner had a good case on merits, but the tlial corrrt disrnissed the petitions filed by the petitioner. The petitioner- rvas ,lcn1,ing the title of the respondent No.l. l-hcre was a long pending dispute Lretu.een the parlies. The trial courl ought to have given an oppol'tunity to the petitioner toprove his case which would be heipful fbr its proper ad-judication and prayed to set aside the inrpugned ordels.

4. 'I'he le'amed counsel lor the respondent No. 1-plaintiff, on the ot-her hand, contendcd that not only on 26.10.2021, but also on several proceeding datr:s, the petitioner-defendant No. I kept himself absent. Ol an earlier cccasion also, the evidence of the petitioner-defendant No.l was closed. The petitioner-defendant No.l q,as dragging the proceedings intentionally. Several opporlunities were given to them, but despite taking a lenient attitude, they continued to drag on the -) Dt.l;Rfi,J ( RI' ios 2(91.I:5e1of 20:l proceedings deliberately by not presenting the witness for cross- examination for years together and caused delay even in filing the chief affidavit. The petitioner could not seek rcopening of the evidence and to recall the witness to set aside the order of cschew of the evidence without tiling a revision to set aside the order of eschewing his evidence. The petitioner could not rrake a prayer to reopen and recall the witness w'hose evidence w,as alrcadv eschc'wed There were no bonafides on the part of thc petitioner to ntaintain thc application. There were no merits in his case. The petitioners herr.:in were legal representatives ofthe protected tenants. Thcy had already surrendered their rights. They were not having any right over the suit schedule property. They were only draggirrg the nrarter. T'he trial court, on considering the conduct of the petitioner-def'endant No. i dismissed the petition, which required no intert'crence b1, this Court and prayed to dismiss the re'" ision petitions

5. Perused the record

6. The court below in the irnpugned orders had clearly stated about the conduct of the defendants in not pursuing the matter rvith due diligence and recorded as such: 4 DT.GRR.J CRP ros. 269t & 2691 of 2022 "'l lris is rL suit for pcrpetual injunctiorr filcd during tl,c ).r'ar l0ll and on 15.12.2017 the evidence of lll:rintill was closcd thercafter posted the nllttter to Ji lendanls er itlence to 27.12.2011 to 05.01 2018. l. i)1.1018. ()n 21.01.1018 as d.'lcndanrs lriled ro l, tlLtcc evirlcrrcc. thc eridencc ol delendants r,,.as cl rsgi nn,l posted {'or argunrcnls till 10.()1.2018. u rcrein thc dr't-cndants filcd Intcrlocutory applictrtions 1o reopcl.l thc cvidcnce of plaintifl and lecalI l,\\r2 for cr rss-eranr iuirtion. Thcrcafter took ntanl nrrtrbcr. of il(llr)Llfrr.ilcr ts. on 26.08.2019 this Crrurr lcniently rrllrr*eri all thc l.A applicalions llled bv the I)c(ilioncrs rrrr.i lconerrcri the plaintil)' evidencc iurd lirr. cross- u. u,lnaiion rrl PW2. Fu(hc-r vidc LA.Nos.()6'2018 rrri I 97,201li. thc clefcndants evidcrrcc rras re,rpcncd ar I perrnittcri to file the chief alfidavit of l)\\ I on p:r, r.t.lct'l t of costs ol l{s.500/i pa1.'ablc 1() the rLr. l-.ondcntr plaintifl-. '[ hercafter rranv nurrrl.cr of lurl ouLnntents rvere taken b1.'thc petitioners rncl llna[]v ol l-1.02.2020 Lhc chicf alllclavit ol'I)Wl r.ras allirnrcd arrrl Lrs.Ill to 84 uerc ntarketl- subsequcnll\ thc nr.rtter is ;rostcd lor furthel marking ol'docuntcrrts and 1.t\' I failcd k) appear bclorc the Oourt inspite of lir irrg rrolc tlrau sultlcient adjournnrcnts till 10. 10.2011. On 26.10.?021 this Court \.\,aired rill :i.30 l'.)i and as I)Wl rvas absent inspite of conditional trtrlcr- hencc evidence ol'DWI rr.as escheuerl and ,lcl:ndanls evidence win closed and postcd tlrc nrattcr iirr rlrgument. '[ herealicl thc present petitioll i:i filed irrr t)9.02.2012 by the pctitioners again to sel asiJe the oti!.:L ciatcd 16.10.2021 r.vithout anv valirl and sril icicnl rclrsrtn and only on thc prctext tliat it $'as 5 Itt (;RR,J ('RP l\ot 169t&)691o[ ]tl)2 \\'rongly notcd in the diary ol counscl fbr pctitioncrs as ?6.11.2021 instead of 26.10.2021 Thc said plea takcn by the petitioners is nol. bonalide as evetr alicr 26.10.2021 also manv numhcl of adjoumments u'crc taken and tiled the prcscnt llctitiorls and lurthcl thts Court alread-v-' reoptned thc dcll'ndiurts evidencc and lilcd clricf aflidavit ol' I)Wl vide ordcrs irt I.A.No.96i20l8 and 9712011'l datcd 26.0ti.20ltl rthich clearlv reveals thc conduct ol- pctilionets hcreirr- though more than sulllcicnt tinte and oppttrtunilics rvcre given by the Court- the D\\ I *hose eridcttcc rvas filed on 30.10.1019 r)c\cr corrprr.rlecl rvilh tite Court and continued tlte sanrc. llencc lhis L'out-t llrtrls no sufflcicnt groullds t(\ allou the petitiolr: as petitioners thiled to Lrtilize thc oppotlLtnil.r ot' rcopcning the def'enclants cr,tdcttce a1t(l tlling chic{' affidavit of DWI bl its ordcrs datcd 16.08.1()l!) in I.A.Nos. 9612018 ',,l4 ttJl2()1S. Ilcnce , r1() Dtrposc rvould bc scrrc.l er,;n ii l,ij I'r(s-rit pctiti,rt' .rre allowed. As petitioners tailcd to complele clL\ss (ll' DWI liom 26.08.2021 tr.r 16. l0.20li rttd st-ti1 'tas posted for lurther ntalking ol'doeunlcrlis thrtiirgh I)\\'l i.vhich clearll' reveals conduct ol- pctitioncrs. ll)us viewed in anv anglc thc petitiottcrs art not cttlitlecl tirt- the reliefs sought for."

7. As the order of the trial couft would disclose that the evidence of the defendants was closcd on 22.01 .2018 itself as they failed to adduce evidence on several oppofiunities given to them earlier on 27.12.2017, 05.01.2018, 22.01 .2018, but thereafter filed 6 Dt.CRR.! ( :R l',\'o\. 259 I & 269! of 202 2 I.As. to reope r the evidence of the plaintiff and to recall pW.2 for cross-examina. ion and the same was also allowed by the court and the evidence ol-thc defendants was also reopened vide I. A. Nos.96 and 9g of 2018 on pa),ment of costs of Rs.500/-, but thercalier also DW. I failed to appcrrr before the court till 26.10.2021 ancl observing the conduct of th-. petitioners-defendants, though sufficient tirne and opporluuities r;e.re gi'e, by the court, but DW. I rrc,r,er cooperated u,ith the courr. dismisscd the petitions. This Court docs not lind an1. illegality or irr' -'gr-rla rity in the ordcrs of the court bcrow to sct aside the same.

8. ln thc result, both the CRps are dismissed confiruring the orders of thc icarned XVII Senior Civil Judge, Cily Civil Coufi, Ilydcrabacl in I A. Nos.65 and 66 of 2022 in O.S. No.245 of 2014 dated I I . i 0.2021. No order as to costs. Miscellanc'ous applications, pending if any, shall srand closed. //TR,UE COPY' SD/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI DEPUry REGISTRAR sEclLiSFFrcER To,

1. The XVll Senior Civil Judge, C.C.C. at Hyderabad. 2. 2 CCs to SRl. CHETLURU SREENTVAS Advocate IOPUC] 3. 2 CCs to SRl. B SHASHIDHAR Advocate [OPUC] l(. A. Two CD Cooies. vPM/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 l COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.2691 and 2694 of 2022 a ( * , ttl 16 JUL zffi P * ,:) DISMISSING THE CRPs v ^ €