SRI. N v. R. RAJYA LAKSHMI

Petition under Section 148 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 14-09-2018 in CRP No.530'1 of 2018 and until further orders, till the disposal of CRP . lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 148 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted on 14-09-2018 in CRP No. 530 1 of 2018 till the disposal of CRP. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying [f at in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted on141091201\ in CRP No.5301 of 2018 till the disposal of CRP , Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. N. V. R. RAJYA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2,5 & 7 : SRI M. RAMA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5302 OF 2018 Petition Under Article 227 ot lhe Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 19-12-2017 in l.A.No. 341 of 2017 in O.S.No. 2OB of 2OO7 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad. Between:

1. Jrjula Laxman Babu (died) as per LRs, Warangal 2. Jijula Roja Ramani, w/o Laxman Babu Aged about 52 years, occ- Householdr/o Narsampet village and Mandal, Warangal District.

3. Jijula Sravanthi, d/o late Laxman Babu, aged about 35 years, occ- Studentr/o Narsampet village and Mandal, Warangal District.

4. Jijula Swathi, d/o late Laxman Babu, aged about 33 years,. occ- Studentr/o Narsampet village and Mandal, Warangal District. 5 Jiiula Yamuna, d/o Late Laxman Babu Aged about 31 years' occ- Studentr/o f,thisampet village and Mandal, Warangal District' ...PETITIONERS/ ( Plaintiffs ) AND

1. Jennaikode Kamalamma w/o Late Narsaiah (died) as per LRs' Secunderabad 2. Jennaikode Srinivas, s/o Lingaiah, aged about 34 years, Occ- Employee' rio - H.N;. ;4--89, New Eiazar, uZnauuuioqo Villa^ge.and Mandal, at present i"i,oing atFrbi r.lo.sln Behind lddgah' P & T-eolony, secunderabad'

3. The Sub-Registrar, Mahabubabad 4. The District Collector, Warangal 5. Chepuri Papaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, aged 62 years, o.cc- Aoriculture' r/o H No' " i-i,'s,i pr.i" sri r.rirryrl.ilini;,;i;tt; fuagai uoulati Hvderabad-50 6. Jannaikode Vimala (died) as per LRs, 7. Jannikode Naresh Kumar. s/o Late Krishna aged about 23 years, r/o-H.No. ' ili , Sii Fr", s"i ttitryjtn, Thirumalaya Nagar Moulali, Hyderabad-5o' (Reiponoents No. 3 arid 4 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS ( Defendants) A NO: 1 OF 2018 PetitionunderSectionlslCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ih"-Higr' court may be pleased_to grant on the file of the Principal .irv irriioi Ci"ir Judge, at Mahaiubabad, pending disposal of the main CRP in the "t-rri interest of justice . further proceedings in oS No.208 of .2007 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. N. V. R' RAJYA LAKSHMI Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.2, 5 & 7 : SRI M' RAMA RAO CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION NO:530 5 0F 2018 Petition Under Article 227 ol constilution of lndia aggrieved by the order datedlg-.12-2017inl.A.No.342of2017ino.S.No.2o8ot2007onthefileofthe Cor* ot tft" Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad' Between: "l . Jiiula Laxman Babu (died) 2. Jtiula Roia Ramani, w/o Laxman Babu Aged aboqt !f years' occ: - Hl;"i;1,1/o llariirhpet village and Mandal, Warangal District - 3.JiiulaSravanthi,d/olateLaxmanBabu,agedabout35years'occ:Studentr/o NSrsampet village and Mandal, Warangal District i j I 1: lL I i l iit'r

4. Jiiula Swathi, d/o late Laxman Babu, aged about 33 years, Occ: Student,r/o Nhrsampet village and Mandal. Warangal District

5. Jiiula Yamuna, d/o Late Laxman Babu Aged about 31 years, Occ: Student r/o N'arsampet village and Mandal, Warangal District ...PETITIONERS/ ( Plaintiffs) AND

1. Jennaikode Kamalamma w/o Late Narsaiah (died) 2. Jennaikode Srinivas, s/o Lingaiah, aged about 34 years, Occ: Employee, r/o H.No. 4-4-89, New Bazar, Mahabubabad Village and [Vlandal, at present residing at Plot No.5/A Behind lddgah, P and T Colony, Secunderabad.

3. The Sub-Registrar, lilahabubabad 4. The District Collector, Warangal 5. Chepuri Papaiah, s/o Narsaiah, aged 62 years, occ Agriculture, r/o FI.No T-1 Sri Prem Sii Nilayuam, Thirumalaya Nagar lt/oulali, Hyderabad-S0,

6. Jannaikode Vimala (died) 7. Jannikode Naresh Kumar, s/o Late Krishna aged about 23 years, r/o H No- T-'1 Sri Prem Sai Nilayam, Thirumalaya Nagar lt/oulali, Hyderabad-SO. (Res.Nos. 3 and 4 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS( Defendants) lA NO: 'l OF 2018 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 grant stay of all further proceedings in os No.208 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil judge, at Mahabubabad pending disposal of the main CRP in the interest of justice. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cou.rt may be pleased to extend the stay granted on 14-09-20'18 and which was extended up lo 15-11-2023' in CRP No. 5305 of 2018 may be extend for further period till the disposal of CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. V. R. RAJYA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI M .RAMA RAO The Court made the following COMMON ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI c.R.P. Nos.5301 5302 and 5305 of 20{8 COMMON ORDER: Heard Ms. N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi' learned counsel for revision petitioners/plaintiffs'

2. As these revision petitions are emanating from the common order, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 3(a). C.R.P.No.5302 of 2018 is filed against the order passed in 1.A.No.341 of 2017 whereby prayed for recall of PWs'3 and 4 for the purpose of marking exhibits Al to 46' 3(b). C.R.P.No.5305 of 2018 is filed against the order passed in l.A.No.342of2olTwhichwasfiledforre.openingthesuitforthe purpose of recalling PWs.3 and 4 for marking exhibits Al to 46' 3(c). C.R.P.No.5301 of 2018 is filed against the order passed in l.A.No.343ot2olTwhereinprayedfortreatingthesuggestions given in the cross-examination by the counsel for defendant Nos.2 and 5 referring to the sale agreement' as Ex'A1 as Ex'A6'

4. All these petitions in O'S'No'208 of 2OO7 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad' were adjudged tettfe .impugned order. lt; I l t i i I I i F 2

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.09.1997. ln the suit the plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to ,46 in 2005; Subsequently, the suit was clubbed with another suit O.S.No.77 of 2007, wherein the documents marked earlier were again marked as Exs.Al to 46 as per the docket order dated

08.08.2005. However, the documents were not physically marked and signed by the presiding Officer. ln these circumstances, the plaintiff No..l has passed away and to get marked the documents recalling pWs.3 and 4 is essential for marking the documents and also to mark the suggestions given by defendant Nos.2 to 5 in regard to.the sale agreement dated

29.09.'1 997 as Exs.A1 to 46, the petitions ought to have been allowed.

6. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court without considering these aspects and by mentioning that since the matter has been transferred, fresh trial has to .be conducted, dismissed the petitions with a direction to adduce evidence.

7. Additionally, pleaded that since there is an interim direction, the proceedings before the trial Court have been stalled and .examining the witnesses is essential to prove the revision I I i I I l l I i I -,1 3 petitioners/plaintiffs' case for proper adjudication of the matter' Hence prayed for intervention.

8. Mr. M. Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondents lleaded in favour of the impugned order. He pointed that the suit was indeed returned for presentation before proper Court and that is how the suit came on to the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, tvlahabubabad, in this position the revision petitioners asking for continuance of the earlier proceedings cannot be sustained and the trial Court had rightly observed in the impugned order that fresh trial has to be conducted and the revision petitioners will get opportunity to bring the relevant documents on record. Thus, dismissal of the petitions filed by revision petitioners is ProPer.

9. ln these counter pleadings, the point that arises for determination is, whether the revision petitioners made out a case for re-open, recall and marking the documents in the facts and law?

10. As per the revision petitioners, the suit vlde O.S.No.1't7 of 2007 upon transfer was renumbered as O.S.No.208 of 2007 - On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submits that the suit was returned for presentation before appropriate Court, as such the proceedings would be held afresh on the file of the 4 Principal Junior Civil Judge. The parties are in agreement that no fresh trial has been commenced before the Court

11. The applications filed by the revision petitioners are indicating that in continuance of the earlier suit proceedings the present suit is being conducted and the stand taken in the affidavit annexed to the interlocutory applications demonstrating that documents marked in the earlier proceedings were already marked as Exs.A1 to 46, even after the suit was clubbed with another suit and the contention is that the marking was not properly endorsed on the documents by the Presiding Officer. Therefore, this statement is evidencing that documents were already marked on 08.08.2005 as per the daily proceeding sheet. However, endorsement is not made on the documents by the Court by the docket proceedings, if it so the Court would complete the formality of marking or endorsing on the document as it has been already recorded on the docket. For this purpose re-opening or recalling would not be necessary. That apart marking of suggestions given by the defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the cross-examination as exhibits is unacceptable for the reasons, such marking is not required as the suggestion is already part of record and no legal provision allows such marking 12 On the other hand, if the trial Court is taking up denovo trial, revision petitioners will have opportunity to produce the i I I i l i i I I ,/' 5 I i I evidence and without there being specific application' the revision petitioners can present their witnesses along with the documents' ln such case re-opening and recalling and asking the Court to mark the earlier documents would be redundant'

13. Therefore, in either case the prayer of the revision petitioners in the impugned applications are failing on merit ln effect the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed' 14 ln the result, these civil revision petitions are dismissed' No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any' shall stand closed Sd, - MOHD .ISMAIL, E UTY REG ISTRAR IITRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER [:J.?:'li5$'f LX'?[?i'Xif'1t cate ro P u c] *. *O*O RAO' Advocate TOPUCI i ll""';Ug'a'-t 3. One CC to SRI' 4. Two CD CoPies t<ul rPo' HIGH COURT DATED:1110212O25 I thi': \ c () .') 2 g JUL 2025 i;r\. ,E- t\ \i\

1.41,. '..;/ '. ';>-' COMMON ORDER CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 5301 5302 and 5305 OF 2018 DISMISSING THE AI,I- CIVII, REVISION PII'fITIONS I I i I I (,,ed"a ?*