V.Lingamma, Wo Late v. Malla Reddy, Aged

9. V. Ramanarasimha Reddy, (died as per L.R. Respondent No. 2) 10. Nagarjuna Construction Company Ltd.,#41 . Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, Rep by its Chief General Manager (Legal) Cum Company Secretary M.V. Srinivasa Murthy. ...PETITIONERS/CLAIMANT NOS.1 TO 6,8 TO 11 (Petitioner Nos.1,3,4,5 & 6, rep by GPA Holder i.e., Petitioner No.10 vide Doc' No.l168 of 1999) (Petitioners 2,7 &8 rep. by GPA Holder i.e., Petitioner No.10 vide Doc.No.2060 of 1997) AND 1 State of A.P, Rep by District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Statton Road' Hyderabad' RES'.NDENT/.LATMANT 2 V. Rajyalakshmi, Wo Late V. Ramanarasimha Reddy, Aged. Major' Occ Real Estate, R/o Ashoknagar Colony, Hanumakonda. Karimnagar District 3 Vishwa Sapthagiri Co-op Housing Society Ltd., Rep by its Secretary' LCS REDDY, S/o. L.L. Sudhakar Reddy, R/o House No 6-3 1176, Begumpet' Hyderabad.

4. L.L. Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Late L. Veera Reddy, Aged 80 Years, Occ. Business, R/o House No. 6-3-1 176, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

5. Ali Asgar Ceizer, S/o Mirza Hussain Ali Ceizer, Aged 65 Years, Occ. N.R.l, R/o H.No. 3-5-855, Hyderabad.

6. V. Satyanarayana Reddy,, S/o Late V. Malla Reddy, Aged 44 Years, Occ. Real Estate, R/o H.No. 6-3-5971111A, Anand Nagar Colony, Khairtabad, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.6 is a not necessary party) RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT NOS.12 TO 15 (RESPONDENT NO.6 tS A NOT NECESSARY PARTY) ...RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/CLAIMANT NO.7 IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 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 orders dated 17 .O3.2O23 until further orders in the interest of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2023 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 permit the Petitioners to bring on record the passport containing the visa stamping and boarding pass of Mr M.V Srinivasa Murthy lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section '1 51 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the Deponent herein r.e. the authorized signatory of Petitioner No. 10 Company to represent the other Petitioners and to depose on behalf of all Petitioners and do all such other actl s as are required to be done from time to time and pass lA NO: 3 OF 2023 Petition under Sectron 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 pass orders granting intenm stay of all further proceedings in L.A.O.P. No.42 of 2013 pending on the file of the I Senror Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad Counsel for the Petitioners Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Counsel for the Respondent No.S :SRl P CHANDRA SEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER :SMT. VOLIMINENI MANOGNYA : GP FOR ARBITRATION :: ; L: ? 'i THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CML REVISION PE"UTION No.34 of 2O23 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is frled against the Order dated

07.11.2022 in I.A.No.918 of 2022 in L.A.O.P.No.42 of 2013, passed by the learned l-Senior Civil Judge, Cit5z Civil Court, Hydera bad. 2 Petitioners herein have filed an. application uide I.A.No.918 of 2022 in L.A.O.P.No.42 of 2013, against the respondcnts before the tria,l Court seeking to reopen their evidencc and to provide an opportunity to lile chief affidaviL of pe titioners/ claimants No.1 to 3. The trial Court afte r con sidering the arguments of both sides, dismissed the said applic:rtion. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioners pre[errcd thc pr cscnt Civil Revision Petition.

3. Initially, petitioners herein along with respondent No.6 llled ir cltrim petition before the trial Court uide L.A.O.P.No.42 of 20 13, to declare that petitioners as rightful owners and posscssors ol land admeasuring Acs.2 - 30 gts in Sy.No.403, .iubiler-' Hills Municipal Plot No. 10, situated at Road No.1O, Shaikpct village, Banajara Hills, Flyderabad, by dropping all l i I I I I t i I j 2 further proceedings initiated under Andhra pradesh Escheats and Bona Vacantia Act, lg7 4. Subsequently, the claim petitioners No.12 to 15 put forth rival claims regarding the subject property. petitioners herein arong with respondent No.6 hled the claim petition on the ground that they have perfected their title and possession over the subject property. petitioners stated that originally, the subject property rvas allotted to one Shaheen Aziz Ahmecl by Nizam Government. He purchased the same and transferred it to one V.Malla Reddy by way of sale deed- After the dcmise ol V. Malla Reddy, the subject property was devolved onto his tegal hcirs i.e., petitioners No. 1 to 9 along with respondent No.6, n,ho had alienated the said property in favour of pctitioncr No. lO through registered sale deeds/agreement o[ salc cum General power of Attorney with possession since L9'lu th.if predeccssor in title continued to be in possession and ou-nership o[ the subject property, which has been devolved or.rlo r h r,. pe ritioners No.1 to 9 along with respondent No_6. rrho hacl Iater ahenated in favour of petitioner No. 10 and they rcmained rn the continuous possession and ownership of the subject llroperty_

4. O.S.No.33 of 1988 and O.S.No. 1536 of 1996 were also the similar claims to the prescnr L.A.O.p. The trial Court passed the r t) ! I ! i I I I I I I I I , I i r N I / 3 Orders in favour of the petitioners on 07 'O2'2O01, as such respondent No.3 has filed C.C.C.A.No.198 of 2001 and C.C.C.A.No.45 of 2OO2 before this Court and the same are still pending. The respondent No.1 and its officials started interfering q.'ith the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners over the subject property. Challenging the said acts, petitioners filed W.P.Nos.2-t967 and 263O1 of 2003, before this Court and [he samc u'erc allowed on 28.01.2OO4. Aggrieved by the said Orders, respondent No.I and its offrcials frled appeals uide W.A.Nos. lO07 and 10O8 of 2OO4 and the same were allowed' against u'hich petitioners herein frled review petitions uide W.A.M.P.Nos 456 and 458 of 2O06 and the sarne were dismissed by Orcler datcd 08.06.2007. Against the said Orders, petitioners appro:rched t hc Hon'ble Apex Court uide Civil Appeal Nos 8469 and 8475 oi 20O9 and the Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the said :rppeals on 2O.O7.2022, considering tl.e pendency of the prescnt clarn.r petition and gave iiberty to the petitioners to pursuc ttie prcscnt claim petition and further directed the Civil Court to cr.rnsiclcr all the contentions raised by the petitioners in thc prcscnt clairn petttion. The present claim petition is at the stagc ol cviclcrrcc o[ petitioners along with respondent No 6 Whcn tl-re clairn petition was coming for petitioners' evidencc, thc authorized reprcsentative of the petitioner No lO and 4 w.rtness M.V.Srinivasa Murthy was unable to appear before the trial Court as they went to the U.S.A for his son,s engagement, as such chief affidavit of the said witness was not filed. Petitioners along with respondent No.6 have also liled the Adjournment petition, but the samc \.r.as dismissed by the trial court on 2T .06.2022 and posted the matter for evidence of Claimants No. 12 to l5 i.e ., respondents No. 1 to 5 herein. Aggrieved by the said Order petitioners have hled an application urde I.A.No.91 8 of 2022, for setting asidt: the Order dated 27.06.2022 and the same was also dismissecl by the trial Court. Therefore, petitioners requested the Court to set aside the Order of the trial Court and give an opportuni[. to rhem to contest the matter. 5 to reopen The trial Court obscrvecl thaL l)ctrtioners filed the pedtion their evidence bv setting .rsrde the Order dated for filing chief thctn an opportunitv

27.06.2022 and give a-flidavit. It was posted lor t heir er.iclcnce on

15.12.2O2t and later time was extendcd lor 7 rnonrhs in l1 adjournments. As it is a targeted matter and as thc pctirioners larled to get ready with the lnatter, it was dismissecl. The trial Court also observed that petitioners mainly conrcndcd th:rt pctitioners,witness could not appear before thc Court lor tu.o months clue to his son,s 5 engagement, but they failed to give explanation for another six months and thus it was not considered and dismissed. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioners preferred the present revision petition and filed the flight tickets, insurance policy and also the engagement invitation.

6. Perusal of the record shows that the pleas taken by the petitioners for adjournments from 18.02.2022 to 27.06.2022 were mentioned in the counter affidavit hled by the respondents No.3 and 4. It shou,s that though the matter was posted on costs, petitioners could not llle the chief affidavit, as such it was dismissed. No doubt, L.A.O.P was filed way back in the year 2013, but during thc pcndency of the petition, several writ petitions and wrrt appctrls rvere filed and the matter was carried till the Hon'ble Apcx Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court clearly directed them to proceed rvith the claim petition. The petitioners herein sought lor adjor-trnmcnt on the ground that their witness was not availablc in thc country due to his son's engagement in the U.S.A on 28.O5.2022. They have also frled the flight tickets, engagemcnt invit:rtion card and relevant documents to substantia t c t lr. ir rctstort. J ! 6

7. To dispose of the matter on merits, reasonable opportunity has to be given to both the parties. In this case, petitioners were litigants befo.e the court fr-om 2o r 3 onwards. Merely because they could not hle chief affidavrt even when matter was posted on costs, they cannot be deprived of their right to contest the matter. Admittedlv. thc.y are claim petitioners arld it cannot be stated that they are delaying the proceedings or protracting the proceedings. The trial Court ground that cven a [tr:r granting severai adjournments, petitioners failed to fi re the ch ict affidavit. The said Order of the trial Court is not on propcr :rppreciation of llacts and is liab.le to be set aside. dismissed the petition on 8' In the result, the present crvir Rcvisr.. pcrirron is allowed by setting aside the Order of rhc trial Courr dar(.ct OZ .tI.2O22 passed in LA.No.918 of 2022 in L.A.O.p.No.-tJ ol-20 I3, and both the parties are directed to co-opcratc *'rth thc. rri.r court for early disposal of the matter as it is a trrr.gerccl rnatter. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pendrng, il , rn,, . slrall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAE SECTION OFFICER To, 'l . The lsenior Civil Judge, City Civit Court. Hyderabad 2 one cc to smt. vor-ilr,lrvrr.rr lranN#_";ff;care [opuc] 3 TworCCs to Gp FOR nnArrneitOi-r,gh'##,., rhe State of Tetangana 4. One CC to Sri p_Chandra Sekhar. Advocate (OpUC) vsrl,trof*o cD conies \x HIGH COURT DATED:01 10412025 I I I fl-1Ro S 4 /A 04 AUE 2W ?l\(' l o O ). \.:. \ -: . ,, 'i' " \:\ ORDER CRP.No.34 of 2023 ALLOWING THE CRP 3t l i I i I I ! t i i I ! + I !