The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS/DEFENDANTS 2 & 4 AND

1. Ambari Madhusudhan, S/o Jangaiah, lged about 5-3 Years' Occ Agriculture' ilo. H.tto. 4-99, R/o. Bhanoor village, Patancheru Mandal, tiangareooy District. ...RESPONOENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF 2 Ambari Jangaiah (Died), Sangareddy District 3 Sanika Sujatha, Wio Late Ramchnader, D/o Ambari 1?lg?191,'^19*3bo't - +o rJirs. bcc. Household, Rio. market Raod, Shankarpally vrllage ano. Manaal, Raga Reddy District (Respondent No 3 is not necessary pary) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT (RESPONDENT No. 3 lS NOT NECESSARY PARTY) IANO:'l 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 stay ,iirrrtr,", pioceedings'in tA No. rcqatzots in oS No. 46t2017, pending on the file oi tioniUf.i principaisenior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy, pending disposal of the main CRP in the interest of justice, Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI P VISHNU VARDHAN Counsel for the ResPondents: The Court made the following: ORDER trja'-y THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE P.SREE S'UDHA CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.4164 of ,,e4 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed against the order and decree dated 3O.O8.2O24 passed in I'A.No.|l2(t of 2023 rn O.S.No.46 of 2Ol7 on the h1e of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy. 2 . Heard learned counsei for the petitioner ' Despite of service of notice, there is no representation 'ln behalf of respondent No.1. It is submitted that responclcnt No.2 died and respondent No.3 is not a necessary party.

3. An apptication hled before the trial Cour[ to condone the delay of 1366 days i.e., nearly 3 /" years but the trial Court dismissed the application. Aggrieved by the sard order, this revision petition is preferred and it is mair 11 contended that petitioners herein are defendant Nos.2 & 4 in O.S.No.46 of 2Ol7 which rvas filed for partition and separate possession and defendant Nos.2 and 4 received summons in the month of March, 2Ol7 and thereafter, at the inten'r:n tion of the family elders and mediators, a panchayat was held between the plaintiff and the defendants. After due delirerations and mutual negotiations, the plaintiff and the defendants herein arrived at a consensus and accordingly the lls got settled 2 between them and thus plaintiff agreed to withdraw the suit and they believed his version and not attended the Court. Later, defendant Nos.2 to 4 received notices in hnal decree proceedings on 23.01.2023 rn I.A.No.1646 of 2Ol9 in O.S.No.46 of 2Ol7 as such they came to know that the plaintiff had played fraud and obtained an ex parte preLiminarlr decree of partition and therefore defendalt Nos.2 to 4 filed an application for final decree and appointment of Advocate Commissioner. He obtained decree behind their back after settling the matter between them. Though he hled application in the year 2Ol9 they received notices rn 2023 i.e., nearly 3 Y. years. Immediately, after receiving the notices they appeared before the Court. The trial Court without considering the said facts dismissed their application. Admittedly, plaintiff is brother of the defendalts and defendant No. 1 is their father and he died on 2O.O4.2O2O after passing of th,e ex parte order on 24.06.2019. Defendant No.3 is their sister. Suit is frled for partition and separate possession. Petitioners herein submitted that after receiving the summons, family settlement was arrived between them. As the plaintiff agreed to withdraw the suit they did not attended the Court believing his words but the plaintiff obtained frnal decree proceedings in the year 2019 and the 3 notices t*rere served upon them in 2023 only. Aftr:r receiving the said notices they came to know about the ex parle order and thus they filed the said application with a clelay of 1366 days i.e., on 20.O4.2O23. The trial Court obsen'-ed that even aJter receiving the summons they did not appear before the Court and no specihc reason rvas assigned arld there was huge delay and accordingly dismissed the same. Bul learned counsel for the petitioners contended that ir-r view of the family settlement they never expected that plaintiff will proceed with the suit. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent in his counter denied the panchayath and further stated tl-rat no date of panchayath was informed by them ald contenrled that even after receiving the summons they did not app(:ar before the Court and thus they were set ex parte on 14.O6.2019 and judgment was passed on 24.O6.2019 .

5. Admittedly, parties herein are brothers sister of the same family' and suit is frled for partition arLd it is to be decided on merits and after due contest. Therefore, this Court considering the reasons stated by the petrtioners herein finds that it is just and reasonable to condon: the delay of 1366 days but on cost of Rs.5,0O0/- to the District l,egal Services Authority within a period of one week f:'om today. s-7

6. With the above said direction this revision petition is 4 allowed with costs As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed SD/- MOHO.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 4 Principal Senior Civil Judge, Sanga Reddy. One CC to SRI P VISHNU VARDHAN, Advoc One CC to SRl, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies ate [OPUC] stii t)s1 lrir-- HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 ORDER CRP.No.4164 of 2024 -.- =::_::--- -\ 2l sEP 2025 * L,: ALLOWING THE REVISION PETITIOiJ WITH COSTS ( 't- Jo t )_)