In a civil revision, the High Court rejected the complainant's attempt to quash the Trial Court's refusal to admit a rejoinder filed after a decade-long delay, affirming the order that barred further delay in the partition suit.
C.R.P. No. 1634 of 2024 and all connected applications were dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3405 ]
/
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEN/BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOTJR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1634 OF 2024
Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated 19-03-2024 made in I.A. No. 14512024 in O.S. No. 89512022 (OId O.S. No. 74912013) on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Warangal.
Between:
Samala Vilayalaxmi, Wo. Late Satyam, Aged about 63 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. H.No. 3-4-22611 , Raipura, Hanamkonda, Warangal
( Respondents 3 to 10 are not necessary parties )
...Respondents / Respondents / Plaintiffs
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 stay all further proceedings in O.S 895/2022 (Old O.S. No.749l2013) dt 19-03-2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Warangal pending disposal of the main CRP.
lA NO: 2 OF 2024
Between:
Kondatla Suguna Devi, Wo. Late Sudhakar, Aged about 57 years , Occ. Household, R/o. H.No. 12-1-173, Ramannapet, Warangal Urban District
...Petitioner / Respondent No.'l / Respondent No. 1
AND
...Respondent / Petitioner / Petitioner
10 l\ilanda Vijay Kumar, S/o. Late Pullaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Business, All R/o H.No. 12 1 1O3, Pinnavari Street (Near Joshi Ir/ithaiGhar) Warangal
...Respondents / Respondent Nos.2 to 10 / Respondent Nos. 2 to 10
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may bepleased to vacate the interim orders dated 05-07-2024 in lA No. 1 of 2024 in CRP No. 1634 of 2024.
Counsel for the Petitioner
Sri S AV Ratnam
Counsel for the Respondent No. 1
Sri Narendar Jalli
The Court made the following Order:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1634 of 2o24
ORDER:
The dates relevant to the Civil Revision Petition are admitted by the parties. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.8 in a Suit for partition filed in 2013. The Suit for partition was thereafter dismissed for default.'lhe procccdings however continued belorc the Trial Court on the strength of a Counter C1aim {rled by the respondent No. 1 herein (defendant No. 1 in the Suit for partition) in 2074 .
t I
2
I I I I I
MB,J CRP.No. 1634 of2O24
belief of having filed an earlier rejoinder was not believable. The Trial Court records that the petitioner herself stated that the petitioner,s right to file rejoinder was forfeited on 18.01.20 17. Further, issues were framed on O5.02.2018 and the petition for taking the rejoinder on record was filed in 2024. Several of the witnesses had already been examined by the time the petitioner hled the application,
3
MB,J CHP.No.7634 oJ 2O24
/
restraint on the Trial Court was to pronounce any final decision until the Civil Revision Petition is taken up for hearing.
dismissed. There sha1l be no order as to costs.
Sd/- V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
,TRUE COPY'
To
SECTION OFFICER
VA/DL
$
HIGH COURT
DATED:2010912024
ORDER
CRP.No.1634 of 2024
c os THE SL4 l(. v^
o
o
1S ,!'[ii Z0A
a
Di,, 3PAlcttE')
DISMISSING THE CRP (6GdA -W-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an interlocutory application seeking permission to file a rejoinder filed after a delay of 10 years should be allowed in a partition suit.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the Trial Court's refusal to allow a belated rejoinder which frustrated the timeline for trial.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Samala Vilayalaxmi
Kondatla Suguna Devi
Moushumi Bhattacharya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
