The High Court · 2025

...RESPONDENTS/PLAINTIFFS

8. Rama Rajendram, S/o Pedda Veeranna, Aged about 88 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Girmaiipet, Warangal, Warangal District. 9- Rama Varadarajulu (died), Per L.R Respondent No.11 herein. 10. Rama Jailaxmi, W/o Laxminarayana, Age. tvlajor, Occ. Household, Rl/o. Girmajipet, Warangal, Warangal District, (Died) per LR petitioner herein-

11. Rama Laxmikantha, Wio. Varadarajulu, Aged about 8 i years, Occ. Household, Rl/o. Girmalipet, Warangal, Warangal Di:;l ict.

12.Niraja, Wo. Not Ktowt tq the Pe!i-!io4eq, Aged abou: '0 years, Occ- Household, R/o- Ramulawada, Girmaiipet, Waranga , ,larangal Districl. 13. Kumari Veeramani, D/o. Late Rama Varadarajulu, A,1 :d about 67 years, Occ Household, R/o. Ramulawada, Girmajipet, Waranga , /Varangal District.

14. Vangari Dasu, S/o. Shankaraiah, Aged about 90 yezr ,, Occ- Business, Rl./o. Kasibugga, Warangal, Warangal District-

15. Varaganti Bakkaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged about 90 ears, Occ, Business, R/o. Kasibugga, Warangal, Warangal District.

16. Varaganti Mallaiah, S/o. Komuraiah, Aged about 90 / ,ars, Occ. Business, R/o. Kasibugga, Warangal, Warangal District. ..RESPONDENTS/DEFI: IDANT NO.i TO 9 & 1i I.A.NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in tr rn the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High ti order early disposal of l.A. No. 87O of 2O14 in l.A. No, 4t t of 1974 including l.A. No.468 of 1990 in O.S. NO. 46 o' court of the Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, pending drsc Revision Petition ) circumstances stated )urt may be pleased to of 1 990 in O.S. No. 46 197 4 on the file of the )sal of the above Civil Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOT]RABLE SRIJUSTTCE B. VTJAYSEN REDDY CIVIL REWSION PETTT ON No.4472 OF 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 12- t2-2025 Between: Mr. Kodanti Manemma W/o. Ramakanth ... Petitioner AND Mr. Ramakistaiah (died) Rep. by his legal representatives and fifteen ( I 5) others. ... Respondents ORDER: (ORAL) This Civil Revision Petition is tiled by the petitioner seeking expedite disposal of I.A. No.870 ol20l4 in t.A. No.468 of 1990 in O.S. No.46 of 1974 including I.A. No.468 of 1990 in O.S. No.46 of 1964 on the frle of learned Senior Civil Judge, Warangal (for short 'trial Court').

2. Mr. S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the suit filed for partition in O.S. No.46 of 1974, preliminary decree was passed on i 1.08.1999. For passing final \ 2 decree, application in l.A. No.468 of 1990 in O.S. l.l r.46 of 1964 was filed to appoint Advocate Commissioner for d'ision of suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. 'I'l e Advocate Commissioncr filed report dated 12.08.1D9 divic ing the suit schedule proper'ties intc four (4) equal shares, hovr ver, "vithout taking technical assistance and without ascertaininl; the value of structures of the suit schedule properties. The appli, ation in I.A No-870 of 2014 was filed to reopen I.A. No.468 of 1990 with a direction to Advocate Commissioner to frle his repor . According to leamcd counsel for the petitioner, report dated i2.t t8.1999 is an interim report and final report has to be filed by lre Advocate Comrnissioncr

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted thz - erroneously thc trial Court has passed docket order dated -]r.04.20 l0 in I.A. No.468 ol 1990 in O.S. No.46 of 1974 by recor,l ng that there is no reprcsentation for the Advocate Commissioner and directed the petitioner and respondents to pursue with t Le r\dvocatc Commissioner to file report. Further, it is observed t rat till report J is f,rled by the Advocate Commissioner, the application I.A.No.468 of 1990 in O.S. No.46 of 1974 stands closed.

4. It is not clear from the averments made in the affidavit as to whether the report dated 12.08.1999 filed by the Advocate Commissioner is an interim report or not. [t appears that the petitioner is not satisfied with the report. I I the petitioner is aggrieved by the report of the Advocate Commissioner, she ought to have filed objections to the repoft. Horvever, the petitioner chose to file I.A. No.870 of 2014 to reoperl I.A. No.468 of 1990. The circumstances leading to file such application are not clearly spelt out in the affidavit.

5. However, the limited grievance ol- the petitioner is that orders have not been passed in I.A. No.870 <tf 20t4. Lcarned counsel for the petitioner requested this Courr to pass orders directing the trial Court to dispose ol t.A. No.870 of 2014 in I.A. No.468 of 1990 in O.S. No.46 ol 1964 as expeditiously as '| l possible. 4

6. In view of the above, considering that ap rlication ln I.A. No.870 of 2014 in I.A. No.468 of 1990 in O.S. I'k .46 of 1974 is pending for more than ten (10) years, the civit revis < n petition is disposed of, directing the trial Court to pass orders irr t.A. No.870 ol z\l14 l.A. L\o.+oo 0l r r.\nn lv:ru :-- r\ c! lll w.J. r.l^ l\\,.'tL, ^L - a lrl7/t L I ^-,{ r 7/'r arr\r thereafter, pass orders in LA. No.468 of 1990 in Ct. l. No.46 of 1974, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within e reriod of six (6) weeks frorn the date of receipt of a copy of this < rder. There shalt be no ordcr as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applicali rns, if any, pending ir.r the civil revision petition stand closed. Sd/. U. SUDHA ASSII iTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI NO ICER To I

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, Warangal District 2. One CC to SRI S SURENDER REDDY Advocate [OPU{) 3. Two CD Copies VM/PR HIGH COURT DATED: 1211212025 ORDER CRP.No.4472 of 2025 y', ,/_li(. ll-:. \' .- .IHE STI ( ,t i 7 JAN 2[26 ? '-., 1 I \ .r( i DISPOSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION ')-,r\ta