The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS AND 1 . Barvad Swetha, S/o. B. Vishnu Vardhan Reddy Aged about 34 years, Occ- Housewife, R/o. H.No. 2-56, Votpally Village, Doma lt/andal, Vikarabad District.

2. RyallaSravani, W/o. R. Sriivas Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occ- Housewife, Rl/o. H.No. 2-82, Kolkur Village, Sadasivpetlt/aadal. Sanga Reddy District - 502 291.

3. ChallaMalleshwari, D/o. C. Narsimha Reddy Aged about 28 years, Occ- Student, Rl/o. H.No. 1-44 . Sarpanpally Village. Vikarabad [Vlandal and District. ....RESPONDENTS/I.S. PETITIONERS/DEFENDANT NOS. 4 TO 6

4. Challa Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Late Ram Reddy, Aged about 55 years, Occ- Agriculture,

5. ChallaBujji, W/o. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 51 years, Occ- Housewife, 6. Challa Shiva Kumar Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Aged about 30 years, Occ- Student, All are Fi/o. Sarpanpally Village, DharurMadal, Vikarabad District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANT NOS. 1 TO 3 -7 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under lection '151 CPC praying that in the circunrstances stated in the affidivit filed r support of the petition, ifre Hign Court nray be pleased to suspend the order dr:ed 13-1'l-2024 passed in 1.A.No.778 of 2024 in O.S.No.87 of 2014 on the file o .he Court of the Principal District Judge, \iifie1s6ad District, Pending disposal of I e above C.R.P., lA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition unrjer lection 15'1 CPC praying that in the circrnrstances stated in the affidavit {iled n support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to stay all further croceedings including hearing in O.S.No.87 o'f 2i14 on the file of the Court of the Prircipal District Judge, Vikarabad District, P€ncing disposal of the above C.R P.. Counsel for the Peti .ioner:SRl. Y RAMA RAO Counsel for the Res;:,:ndent Nos. 1 to 3: SRl. P VARUN REDDY The Court made ther fr:llowing: ORDER w HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASI{AR REDDY CTVIL REVISIO N PETITION No.397 of2025 ORDER: The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 13'11.2024, passed in I'A'No'778 of 2024 in O.S.No.87 of 2Ol4 by the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District (for short, the trial Court').

2. The petitioners herein/plaintiffs have instituted a suit uide O.S.No.B7 of 2Ol4 on the frle of the District Judge' Vikarabad, against the defendants seeking partition and separate possession. During pendency of the suit' the rlefendant Nos.4 to 6/respondent Nos' 1 to 3 herein filed I.A.No.778 of 2024 under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC seeking to receive their additional written statement in O S'No'87 of 2014. After considering the rival submissions, the trial Court allowed the said application uide order dated 13 ' 1 I '2024 ' Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective Parties and P emsed the record. ! I 2

4. The corrtention of defendant Nos.4 to 6 befbre tire triai Court is t.hz t the suit properties along with other pr,lperties, to a total e> tent of Ac.12O.00 gts., forming part oi S:y.Nos.9, 10, 11 1), t6, 36, 37 and 4 have been possesr;eri by the plaintifl-s an I defendant Nos. 1 to 6 jointly, who are [er3a1 heirs of late Papi tleddy, however, the plaintiffs have nr,t rncluded al1 the joiret firmily properties in the suit and not mace all the legal heir:; ,r[ late Papi Reddy as party defendantsi to the said suit. This fe i tum was elicited during the cross exaraination and as srrcl . defendant Nos.4 to 6 hled I.A. No.iz1'S of 2024 under tlrdr: - VIII Rule 9 of CPC seeking r,o rer;ei ye their additional t ritten statement in O.S.No.S7 of 2014 . 'T'he trial Court, dulr r aking into consideration of the ruli.tg:; of the Hon'ble Ap':x Court reported in Sudhamagee Pt:rtl:naik u. Bibhu Prasod Sahoot, framed an issue ui-2., Wlrc. her the petitioner:; / r u,fendant Nos.4 to 6 have mad,: cut any justihable )r1se for receiving their additional r.vritten statement .r'ter commencement of the trial in O.ll.I,lo.B7 of

2014. 1'he -r'ial Court, adverting to the said iss..re, has observed t.h:t in the cross-examination of pW-1 orL t,ehalf of ' LAWS (sc)-202r - )-72 3 defendant Nos.4 to 6, it is categorically admitted that no partition took place between the children of late Papi Reddy. It is further observed that some other properties which were owned by late Papi Reddy were not included in the suit and some of his legal heirs were also not made as parties and has allowed I.A.No.778 of 2024 uide order dated 13.11.2024.

5. This Court has carefully examined the reasoning given by the trial Court, wherein, the trial Court has observed that the entire the suit schedule property which was recorded in the name of common ancestor late Papi Reddy has not been included in the suit and the plaintiffs have not made the other co-sharers/legal heirs of late Papi Reddy as parties to the suit and further observed that for effective disposal of the suit, inclusion of all the legal heirs and remaining items of the properties owned by late Papi Reddy, are necessary. It is settled that in a suit for partition, there are no individual claims. Even though the defendants are arrayed as respondents, they can be transposed as plaintiffs under special circumstances.

6. In view of the above discussion, this Court frnds no iiiegality or irregularity committed by the trial Court in \ t 4 allowing l.A, llo.778 of 2024 filed by defendant Nos,4 to 6 for receiving acl litional written statement l

7. For the aforesaid reasons, the Civil Rer-ision Pr:tition is misconoeivo 1 and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is left open to tht: retitioners to raise all the available l3rounds in the pendinp; suit, in accordance with law. As zL s; r1ue1, the miscellaneous petitions pendinr4, if any, shall stand rlosed. No order as to costs. SD/.MOHD ISMAIL DEPLITY REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY/I LI-,,, I}ECTION/OFFICER ,/

1. The Principa l)istrict Judge, Vikarabad District. 2. One CC b S Rl Y RA[/A RAO, Advocate [OPUCj 3. One CC kr tlil P VARUN REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD C.o1r e s To PM l l I i l I i I I I l l i l , ; l t I l I HIGH COURT DATED:07/03/2025 ORDER CRP.No.397 ot 202!i :J s .}- q \ .....-.::''r' I /s .. ,ac DISMISSING THE CIr'IL REVISION PETITION / 4t ,/3 ,/tft5 I I I I I I I I I I ! i I I