The High Court · 2025

...Petitioner/Defendant No.2 AND

1. K. Ramchandra Reddy, s/o Late K. Thimma Reddy, Aged 73 years, occ. agriculture, R/o Vinjamoor village, Koilkonda Mandal, Mahabubnager Dist- 509371. 2 K. Mohan Reddy (died), Mahabubnagar ...Respondent No.1 /Plaintiff ...Respondent No.2/Defendant No.1

3. G. Vijaya Lakshmi, w/o Late G. Venkatram Redd, aged 67 years, occ. housewife, r/o Hodebeerna Halli, Sulepet limits, Chincholi Taluka, Kalaburgi Dist, Karnataka State- 585 324. 4 Mekala Prameela, Wo Mekala Ambadas, Aged 24 y H.No. 1-10, Kotakonda village, Narayanpet Mandal, ears, occ. agriculture, r/ o Narayanpet Dist. 509210 5- Chini Vijay Kumar, s/o Narsimulu, aged 25 years, occ. agriculture, r/o Kotakonda village, Narayanpet Mandal, Narayanpet Dist- 509210. a (The respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are not necessary parties to this CRP) ...Respondent Nos.3 to 5/Defendant Nos.3 to 5 lA NO:'l OF 2024 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circum; ances stated in the affidavit flled in support of the petition, the High Court may b,) lleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 55 of 2022 on the file of the Prirrr ipal Junior Civil Judge at Mahabubnagar, pending disposal of the main revision ces ) Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR CHALLA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI P.ANlMl REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 5:- The Court made the following: ORDER I THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4087 of 2024 ORDER: Heard Sri Challa Pravin Kumar, leamed counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P. Animi Reddy, leamed counsel for the respondent No. l. Perused the entire record.

2. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the undated docket order returning the counter claim, which was received by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubnagar, ('Trial Court'), in O.S.No.55 of 2022 pending on its tile.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the suit in O.S.No.55 of 2022 was filed by respondent No.l hereir/plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession against the revision petitioner herein and respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein/defendants. ln said suit, the revision petitioner herein/defendant No.2 filed a petition herein Order VIII Rule 9 read with Section l5l of the C.P.C. with a prayer to receive her counter claim and the said petition was allowed vide order dated 01.02.2024. Thereafter, the successor Presiding Officer of the Trial Cowt vide undated docket order retumed the counter claim by passing the following order: t \ RY,J cRP 4087 2024 "My predecessor had received the application t/O.8 IL 9, OVI R.17, along with counter claim upon perusal of the record it eJ :ears that the suit is filed for partition & separate possession and thc j :l'endants had filed their detaited counters along with w/s seeking 1/.t ' share in the suit schedule propcrties. As in the suit for partition & separate possession ca:h party is a plaintiff and they had liberty to prove their case and it : n bc decided on the same by evidence. Hence no separate counter cli irl needed to adjudicate the matter. Hence the same petitions are relur rcd."

4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner has take r objection to the order of the successor Presiding Officer suo motu retrt ning the counter claim, which was taken on record by his predecessor. 'he present Civil Revision Petition is liled solely on the ground that once t r ) counter claim is taken on record by one Presiding Officer, his successor :annot retum the same and that too suo motu

5. While so, the learned counsel for respondent No. rerein referred to the written statement of the revision petitioner filed beft,r : the Trial Court at paragraph No. 12, wherein there is a pleading to the efi ct that defendant No.2/the revision petitioner is claiming 1/4ft undividec ;hare in the suit schedule property. ln effect, retaining counter claim on r e :ord or retuming it would not have any prejudicial effect on either of the prr ties. Even in the absence of the counter claim, the share of the revision p: itioner has to be determined while passing preliminary decree. I 2 RY,J cRP 4087 2024

6. A perusal of the docket order passed by the successor Presiding Officer shows that the reason given for retuming the counter claim is that every party to a suit for partition is a plaintiff and have liberty to prove their claim and there is no need for counter claim. However, in absence of any petition, there was no occasion for the successor Presiding Ofhcer to retum the counter claim. Further, in the event respondent No. I herein is not pressing the suit for partition for any reason, the revision petitioner herein intends to press for his case through counter claim. The said eventuality though improbable cannot be ruled out as such the revision petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed for

7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned undated docket order retuming the counter claim filed by the revision petitioner. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case. The Registry is directed to retum the counter claim as well as the original documents filed by the revision petitioner to leamed counsel for the revision petitioner after replacing the same with photocopies of the said documents. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/. A SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR tl ltl^re rogy 4 /- To,

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge at Mahabubnager. 2. One CC to SRI PRAVEEN KUMAR CHALLA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI P.ANlMl REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies 4L HIGH COURT DATED:1811'112025 ORDER CRP.No.4087 ot 2024 .4 \?' \ a ... c o \\ -. c, \\'<. '\.. . '. I 1 tJ \ I !") At .,-;: .- --.-a-' 't' -.1 ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISTON PET TION a t; +