Betvveen Tatineni Rohit, S/o T v. Krishna, Aged about

Revision Petitioner/ 1't Respo nd e nVPlaintiff

1. Kothapally Narsimha Reddy, S/o Late K. Rami Reddy, Aged about 76 years, Occ Agriculture

2. Kothapally Raji Reddy, S/o K. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ Business

3. Kothapally Krishna Reddy, S/o K. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ Business

4. Kothapally Raghava Reddy, S/o K. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ Business

5. KothapallyAnitha, D/o K. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occ Student Respondents No. 1- 5 are residents of H. No. 3- 5111 , Bakaram Jagir Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District . .. Respondents/Petitioners/ Defendants No. I to 5

6. Kothapally Veera Reddy, S/o Late K. Rami Reddy, ,' Aged about 71 years, Occ Agriculture, 7 Kothapally Thirupathi Reddy, S/o K. Veera Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ Business

8. Kothapally Yadi Reddy, S/o K. Veera Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ Business Respondents No. 6 to 8 are all residents of H. No. 1- 73, Bakaram Village, Moinabad, Ranga Reddy District

9. Kavitha, D/o Kothapally Veera Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occ Housewife, R/o H. No. 25- 351116, Ram Chandra Reddy Nagar, RC Puram, Medak District ... . Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants No.6-9 (Respondents 6 & 9 are not necessary parties to the present Civil Revision Petition) lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition 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 suspend the operation of the Order dated 12. 12. 2024 (copy made available 18. 12.2024) in l. A. No. 787 of 2024 in O. S. No. 919 of 2022, on the file of the lX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar. Civil Revision Petition No 4085 of 2024 Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the present Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Docket order daled 12. 12.2024 (copy made available 18. 12.2024) in l. A. No. 788 of 2024 in O. S. No. 919 o'f 2022. on the file of the lX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar. Between: Tatineni Rohit, S/o T V. Krishna, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Private Employment, R/o 15 1 , Krisha, Gunrock Enclave, Near Tennis Court, Secunderabad, Rep.. by his mother and GPA Holder Smt. T. Shyamala Wo T. V. Krishna AND Revision Petitioner/ 1't RespondenUPlaintiff

1. Kothapally Narsimha Reddy, S/o Late K. Rami Reddy, 7'a Aged about 76 years, Occ Agriculture

2. Kothapally Raji Reddy, S/o K. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 42 years, Occ Business

3. Kothapally Krishna Reddy, S/o K. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ Business

4. Kothapally Raghava Reddy, S/o K. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 35 years, Occ Business

5. Kothapally Anitha, D/o K. Narasimha Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occ Student Respondents No. 1- 5 are residents of H. No. 3- 5111 , Bakaram Jagir Village, Moinabad Mandal, Ranga Reddy District ...Respondents/Petitioners/ Defendants No. 1 to 5

6. Kothapally Veera Reddy, S/o Late K. Rami Reddy, Aged about 71 years, Occ Agriculture, 7 Kothapally Thirupathi Reddy, Sio K. Veera Reddy, Aged about 40 years, Occ Business B. Kothapally Yadi Reddy, S/o K. Veera Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ Business Respondents No. 6 to 8 are all residents of H. No. 1- 73, Bakaram Village, Moinabad, Ranga Reddy District

9. Kavitha, D/o Kothapally Veera Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occ Housewife, R/o H. No. 25- 351116, Ram Chandra Reddy Nagar, RC Puram, Medak District .. . . Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants No.6-9 (Respondents 6 & 9 are not necessary parties to the present Civil Revision Petition) IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition 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 suspend the operation of the Order daled 12. 12. 2024 (copy made available 18. 12. 2024) in I. A. No. 788 of 2O24 in O. S. No. 919 of 2022, on the file of the lX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar. For the Petitioners : Sri. Mohammed Omer Farooq, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: At the admission stage, the Court made the following: ORDER 7 /o THE HONOURABLE S RI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL RDVISION PETITIO N Nos.4O84 AND 4085 of2024 COMMON ORDER: These t'*,o Civil Revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner assailing the docket orders dated 12.12.2024 in I.A.No.787 of 2024 (corresponding to C.R.P. No.4084 of 20241 and I.A.No.788 of 2024 (corresponding to C.R.P. No.4085 of 20241 in O.S.No.9l9 of 2022, passed by the IX Additional District Judge, R.R. District at L.B. Nagar.

2. Fleard Mr. Mohammed Omer Farooq, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Vide the impugned orders, the Trial Court allowed the petition filed under Section 151 of CPC for reopening of the evidence of pW. I for the purpose of cross-examination and also altowed the petition filed under Order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC read with Section l5t of CpC recalling PW. I for cross-examination.

4. Perusal of the records, particularly the impugned orders would show that there is a ground of the petitioner No. 1 suffering from ill- health which prevented him from engaging a Counsel, and thus, the ground for recalling and reopening of evidence was taken.

5. It is these tu,o I.As. u,hich have been allowed by the Trial Court leading to filing of the present Revision Petitions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the past there have been a couple of occasions where PW.1 was recalled for cross- examination which was already done and the same tactic is again availed by respondents, which by itself would show that the intention of the respondents is only to protract the matter and not to find an early conclusion of the proceedings.

7. Upon due consideration ol the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of records, considering the fact that the next date of hearing fixed by the Trial Court is

06.01.2025, which is coming Morrday, this Court does not find any good reason to reach to the conclusion that the intention of the respondents was to protract the proceedings. Nonetheless, since

06.01.2025 is the date given by the Trial Court, it is expected that on

06.01.2025 itself PW. 1 shall remain present before the Trial Court and on the same day, the respondents may cross-exa4:line PW. i. It is ..t 7 n further ordered that the respondents shall not be provided any further opportunity for further cross-examination except on the date fixed on 06.01.2025. The respondenrs shall take all necessary steps in ensuring that PW. 1 is examined on same da,y itself and the Triar court may proceed further with recording of the evidence of other witnesses and decided the Suit as expeditiously as possible.

8. with the aforesaid observations, this Revision petition stands disposed of. No costs. 9 As a sequel, miscellaneous pctitions pending il any, shall stand closed. \ To, //TRUE COPY// ASSI Sd/. N. SRIHARI T REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The lX Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at LB Nagar 2. One CC to Sri Mohammed Omer Fardoq, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies (* o HIGH COURT DATED'.3t1t2025 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.4084 & 4085 of 2024 '{ Y\E STA J -) 04 FIE Itl(l C,) J o tgpal6ttfo t REVISIONS ARE DISPOSED OF, NO COSTS ffi"u.' E