The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONERS/PROPOSED PLAINTIFF No. 2

3. Pothuganti Rajendra Kumar (died per LRs) ...PETITIONERS/PROPOSED PLAINTIFF AND 1 Pothuganti Soundarya, Wo. Late P Vijaya Kumar, aged about - 38 Years, Occ- fiousehold, R/6. Flat No 501 , 5'h flobr, Emerald Block, My Home Jewel Apartments, Madinaguda, Serilingampally Mandal, R. R.District. 2 J Pothuganti Yakshitha, D/o. Late.f .Vijaya Kumar, aged about - 13 Years, Occ- Student, R/o. Flat No.501 , 5'n floor, Emerald Block, tyly Home Jewel Apartments, Madinaguda, Serilingampally Mandal, R. R. District. Pothuganti Dhanush, S/o. Late P.Vrjaya Kumar, age{l about - 09 Years, Occ- Student, R/o. Flat No.501, 5th floor, Emerald Block, My Home Jewel Apartments, tiladinaguda, Serilingampally Mandal, R. R.District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT No. 1 to 3 (Respondents 2 and 3 are being minors, rep by their mother and natural guardian Pothuganti Soundarya). 4 Pothugantr llanqaiah S/" _lppqiql.,, ag_ed about _ 70 years, Occ_ Retd. u No.s-z-zsg,' isi idoatBH-JJriny v"ntue_rr, L.B. Nasar, E?o,BIS,i;,1" o ?9", " ",, 5 rr! . n,, *n ll,T T:. :lJ:::ff:i':j:::',: :: ],' ::: ,i,#r?r;i about- 47 years. occ_ HSusewife R6 H No l i il-oe7l,pr,ji il" ;, Road No 5 Haripuri Cotony, xotnlpli srio"or;;g';r, R";dR;j; D;#;"i.-," 6 Tarini .vladhurika pothuganti, D/o. Late pothuqantr Rajendra Kumar Aoed about - i5 vears. occ- Sludent Iui"*i.p"[v*,nl',. ,"r,fr;;i [4;;;;tikr^Hil H No. i 1-1 3-687 ptot No z, N-";; p;rli'i#,i ilL !''nariprri Cotony, Kothapet Saroornagar. Ranga Reddy Oisirict- ' (R5 & R6 are not necessary parties in this CRp) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 ...RESPONDENTS/LR,s of pETtTtONER No. 3 Petition under section 'r 51 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may ne pteaseO to stay a' further proceedings in o.s.No. 568 0f 2019 0n the fire ol the rV Addr. Senior civir Judge, R R. District at LB. Nagar tiil disposar of this civir revision petition. ( Counsel for the petitioners: Sri padala pravin Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.4l49 of 2o24 ORDER: Heard Mr.Padala Pravin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Perused the material available on record.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the common order dated 02 'O9.2024 passed in I.A.No.807 of 2023 and 58 1 of 2024 in O.S.No.56B of 2Oi9 by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Distriit at L.B.Nagar (for short 'impugned order').

3. Vide the said impugned common order, the tr*l court has partly allowed the petitions liled by the proposed plaintiffs to the extent of the petitioner No. 1 not being permitted to be impleaded as a legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff.

4. Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner herein was infact the daughter of the defendant No.4 and the deceased plaintiff was the second wife of the defendant No.4. The petitioner herein was the daughter born from the deceased first wife of the defendant No.4. I 2

5. The sr:it was filed seeking for partition of the suit schedule property arrd separate possession by the plaintiff. When the suit was filed, the petitioners herein were neither made a defendant nor were they impleaded as plaintiffs and the suit rvas pending consideration before the trial court for almost five years. Mearwhile, the plaintiff expired on 14.O5.2023. Immediately, the two petitioners filed a petition for impleadment as legal heirs of plaintiff. The said I.A. got partly allowed to the extent that the petitioner N,:.2 was permitted to be impleaded as thr:legal heirs of the deceased plaintiff as he was born from thre marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant No.4. W'hereas the petitioner herein was refused to be impleaded as plarntiff for the reason that the petitioner herein was not a child born from the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendalt No.4. Rather, the petitioner herein was the child born from the deceased first rvife of the defendant No.4.

6. Consid,:ring the entire facts and circumstances rtf the case, particularll, the relationship as is narrated in the preceding paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view taken by the trial court is neither erroneous nor contrary to law. The suit is pren6ling since last five years. The petitio[er herein had never approached the court to be impleaded as a necessary 3 pzirty nor has she claim any share in the suit schedule property for a-ll these years. Moreover, she was not born to the deceased plaintiff

7. In the given circumstances, the impugned order does not warrant any interference. Nonetheless, if at all, if the petitioner warts to have a share in the suit schedule property being the legal heir of defendant No.4, the petitioner would have to take other appropriate legal recourse available under law, rather than having been substituted as plaintiff. 8, With the a-foresaid observation, this Civil Revision Petition stands disposed of d Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TION OFFICER \ To,

1. 2. J. VH/gh ThelVAdditionalseniorCivilJudge'RangaReddyDistrictatL.B.Nagar d"., idi""S; ilJJ, Fr.uuin Kumir, Advocate [oPUCI Two CD CoPies @) I I I SiA eI E, ( -) 1-) 1i i{tii'2[6 "fr t -l ?ro HIGH COURT DATED: 2410112025 ORDER CRP.No.4149 of 2024 DISPOSING OF CRP