The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that jn the (:i cumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to stay 'all further proceedings to the impugned order in O S.No.276 of 2016 including LA.No. 236 of 2022 on the file of the lll Addiii nal District Judge Rangareddy District at LB Nagar, pending the disposat of the bove C.R.p Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: -- CIVIL REVISION PET ITION NO: 4015 OF 2025 Between: !!19 [arsha Developers, a registered firm having its regist€r rd office at plot No. 285, Road_No.25, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad : sqo -033 -epresented by its Authorised Partner Gadiraju Venkata Satya Kishore Raju ...PETITIONER/RESPoNDENT No.1 4i t EFENDANT No.1 4 AND

1. Ahmed Hussain, S/o Late Tasadduq Hussain, Aged about 61 years, Occ. Buisiness, R/o H.No. 1 6-7-141, Azampura, Chaderghat, Hyderabad-500024. 2. Ruksana Fateema, D/o Late MukaramJahan, Grand Daughter Of Sltan Hussain Occ: Household R/o. Fl No.16-7-141, Azampura, Chaderghat, Hyderabad-500024

3. Roopchandchowdary, S/o Late Madalnla Chowdary, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Buisiness, R/o H.No.14-4-223, SrikrishnaKunj, LMG High School Road Begumbazar, Hyderabad. RESPON DENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAI NTIFFS

4. Omer Bin Mohd, S/o Late Sultan Omer Nawaz Jung Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o 20-5-509, Shaker Gunj, Shalibanda, Hyderabad.

5. Abdula Bin Mohd, S/o Late Sultan Omer Nawaz Jung, Aged lvlajor, Occ: Business, Rlo 9-3-262144145, Musthafa Nagar, Jahanuma, Hyderabad

6. Awad Bin Mohd, S/o Late Sultan Omer Nawaz jung, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o 20-5-509, Shaker Gunj, Shalibanda, Hyderabad.

7. Mosin Bin Mohd, S/o Late Sultan Omer Nawaz Jung, Aged Major, Occ: Business, Rl/o 20-5-509, Shaker Gunj, Shalibanda, Hyderabad.

8. Shamsheerunnrssa Begum, D/o Late Sultan Omer Nawaz Jung, Aged Major, Occ: Business, R/o 19-3-543/1 15/A, Ali Nagar, Aliyabad, Hyderabad.

9. Sadarunnissa Begum, D/o Late Sultan Omer Nawaz Jung, Aged Major, Occ. ' Business, Fyo 16-7-165, 2nd Floor, Azampura, Hyderabad. - 10. Vicarrunnissa Begum, D/o ldte Sultam Omer Nawaz Jdng Aged Major Occ: Business No 17-1-1.751259/3 Nehru Nagier, Yakutpura, Hyderabad 1 1 . Ali Bin Saleh, S/o. Iate Sultan Saleh Bin Omer G/s late Shamsheer Nawaz , Jung, aged Major Occ: Business Rio 16-8-933/1 Nalgonda X Roads, Malakpet, Hyderabad

12. Habeeba Sultana, D/o late Sultan Saleh Bin Omer Aged Major Occ: Business R/o Sy Nos.12 and '13 Musthafa Nagar, Jahanuma, Hyderabad

13. Siddiqua Sultana, D/o late Sultan Saleh Bin Omer Aged Major Occ: Business r/o 20-5-509 Shaker gunj, Shalibanda, Hyderabad

14. Muralilal, S/o Balden Prasad Aged Major, Occ: Business R/o 15-1-551 2nd Floor Goyal Market, Siddiamber Bazaar, Hyderabad

15.Suresh Goel, S/o late Satyanarayana Goel Aged 50 yrs, Occ: Business R/o 15-1-551 2no Floor Goyal Market, Siddiamber Bazaar, Hyderabad

16. Narayana Murthy, S/o Subba Rao Aged 55 yrs Occ: Business Rl/o Plot No.88 Rail Enclave, Sikh Road, Secunderabad (Respondent Nos. 4 to 16 are proforma parties. Hence, no notice is required to them) ,..RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS,I TO 13 ! i Y lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir( rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma / be pleased to stay all further proceedings to the impugned order in O.S.No.276 r f 2016 on the file of the lll Additional District Judge- Rangareddy District at LEi Nagar, pending the disposal of the above C.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. P VENKAT REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CML REVISION PETITION NOs.3661 AND 4016 OF 2025 DATED: o5.12.2025 Between M/s. Harsha Developers. Vefsus ...Petitioner Ahmed Hussain, S/o Late Tasadduq Hussain and 15 others. ...Respondents Mr. P Venkat Reddy, learled cor,insel appearing for the petrtioner CRP.Nos.3661 arLd 4(]16 of 2025. COMMON ORDER: l. Civil Revision Petition No.il66 r of 2025 has been filed against an order dated 29.O8.2025 passed in I.A.No.237 of 2022 ir:, O.S.No.276 of 2016 by ttre Court of the III Additional District Judge. Ranga Reddy Dislrict, L.B. Nagar ("lrial Court').

2. By the said impugned order, the Trial Court allowed I.A.No.237 ol 2022 frled by tht; respondent Nos. I to 3/plaintiffs for condoning thc dela-y of 1414 <1ays in liling I.A.No.236 of 2022 seeking restoration of lhe Snit. The respondent Nos.l to 4 I l I I l l 2 3/plaintiffs' Suit had earlier been dismisserl for default on

15.03.2018 prrrsuanr to the plaintiffs, non.rppe:rr rncc and failure to filc evidencc and to deposit process t-ce. 3. By the irnpugned ordcr, the Trial Court allo.r:d the plaintiffs, 1A (237 of 2C'22) on the ground thal the pia in irfs had shoq,n srtlficient caLrse for condoning the delay. The petr, ()n was ailou,,ed on costs of Rs. 14,14O/- payable to thc respondent lo.l4 therein by 2'/ .1O.2025. 'l[e petitioner beforc this Court is ttr<. lelcndant No,14 in the Suit filed for partition ancl the respondent lrl r. 14 in the said l. i\ I Lcanrcd riounsel appearing for l_he petitioncr,, r €rfendant No. l4 placcs a seri,:s of docket orders in the Sur. including of

07.O9.2017, 2:t,.12.20tT and 1S.O3.2OtB, to urg: that the Trial Cl,.rurt crred in restoring the Suit against the pcli- tner/ defendant No.14.

5. Counsel .urthcr submits that none of the r.r -ee grounds as slronn by the p-,12in1111", viz., LLle ill-health of thc plr ititiff No.1, the Clovid- 19 Pandc.mic and tl-re erstwhile counsel nor I :+.ing provided informa[ion regrtrding the stage of the Suit, were su rporled by any clocume ntary evidence. 6- The plaintiffs' I.A.No.237 of 2022 for condcr mentions onlv the docket order dated 15.03.201[ plaintiffs' Sujt ',vas dismissed for delault. This ation of delay , rvhereby the vould also be 3 evident from paragraph Nos.6 to 9 of thc Affidavit filed in support of the IA. In essence, the plaintiffs had filed the IA for restoring the Suit which was dismissed by thc docket order dated 1S.03.201g. 7. A perusal of the docket ordcrs placecl by counsel appearing for the pe titioner/ defendant No. 14 shon,s that on 22.12.2012, the Trial Court while recording that Lhe process fee had not been pai<l for the defendant Nos.i, 8 to 12 and 14 and that they remained unrepresented till 04:30 P.M., proceedcd to dismiss the Suit against the said defendants.

8. By the docket order dared 15.03.2018, the Trial Court recorded that the costs had not been paid, the plaintiffs remained absent and there was no representation till 3:45 p.M. The docket order records [hat the plaintiffs had not shown interest in producing evidence, ancl the Trial Court accordingly clismissed thc Suit for default r,r,,ith costs. In this conncction, it is also relevant [o refer to the earlier docket order dated 07.09.2017, which records. inter alia, that fresh noticc had been issucd to the defendant Nos.1, 8 to 12 and 14 through the Courr.

9. Hence, on 22.12.2017, the Suit rvas dismissed as against thc defendant No.14 (petitioner herein). On 15.O3.2018, the Suit was dismissed in its entirety. However, in the IA, the plaintiffs however only prayecl for recalling of the order dated 15.O3.201g. The IA does not refer to the docket order d:rted 22.12.201T bv which the Suit 1 I l l l l i i i 4 r\. was dismissed as against the petitioner/defendan t No.14 due to failure to pay prccess lecs.

10. Thus, rhe Trial C<>urt could not have given :t tv relief to the plaintills in tcrms of restoralion of tl-rc Suit r; against the pe titioner/ deicndant No.I4. Thc Trial Couit faile,l ro notice this [:rct :rnd only reasone<l thal it wou]d be unfair t I disallorv thc plirintiif from ploceeding wrth the main Suit. Ever othcnvise, the plaintifl"s IA is on record. 1 1. Apart fronr bare statements with regard to the hree grounds, the IA does not rlisclosc any documentary evidence i: support of the saicl contention:;. It is reievant to mention that tf : cffect of the Covid- 1 9 Pandcmic \\ras felt from .Ianuary/ F-c rru:rry 2O2O. However, the lailure on the parL of the plaintiffs to I ry the proccss f'cc,and the cos(s pertained to the months of Decerr cer, 2017 and IMarch, 20 i8, respectively which was \ ray before 1:hc lirst impact of the pandcmic.

12. Similarlv, the plaintiffs' petition under Order I) Rule 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for setting aside Llr docket order dated 15.O3.2O18 is premised exactly c,n [he samc ]rree grounds, viz., ill health oi the plaintiff No.1, Covid-19 Pander Lic and failure on the par! ol the erstwhile counsel to contac the plaintiff regarding the st:Lge oI thc Suit. W 5

13. Civil Revision Petition No.4016 of 2025 has been filed against the docket order dated 27 .1O.2O25 by v"'hich the plaintiffs' IA (236 of 20221 for setting aside the dockct order dated 15.O3.2018 was allowed.

14. The impugned docket ordcr clated 27.1O.'2O25 contains no reasons for such order save and excepL lhat the plaintiffs' I.A.No.237 of 2022 (for condonation of <1ela1, ot 1,114 days in filing the restoration petition i.e., I.A.No.236 of 20'221 rvas allowed on

29.O4.2O25. The order dated 29.O8.2O25 is the subject matter of rhc CRP No.366l ot 2025.

15. In view of the aforesaid reasons, viz., (i) thi: plaintiffs having sought relief only against the docket order dated 15.03.20 18, (ii) the absence of sufficiency of cause in the plaintiffs' IA (2.37 of 20221 for conclonation of delay and (iii) thc lack of reasons for allowing LA.No.236 of 2O22, the impugned orders dated 29.O8.2O25 and

27.10.2025 are liable to be interfered with and arc accordingly set aside.

16. CRP Nos.3661 and 40 16 ot 2025, along u,ith all connccled applications, are accordingly ailolved and disposed of. SD/. P.C.SULEKHA DEVI SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To

1. The lll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, L B Nagar 2. One CC to SRl. P VENKAT REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies Pr/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 0511212025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.3661 AND 4016 0F 2025 r' c J 'c 1 Ht. lTnr€ i \ ?ll? 3i * * a:O Dd l-c,F ALLOWTNG THE CRP.NOS.3661 0F 20"t.i & 4016 0f 2025 {:? v J $