Dismissed

Nandala Laxminandam v. Chettipalli Rama Devi

Telangana HC8 Jul 2025CRP/2114/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Plaintiff in a 2012 title-declaration suit challenged dismissal of two applications to reopen evidence and summon registration records for signature comparison. The High Court held an identical earlier application had been dismissed on merits without challenge, ample opportunities were given, and dismissed both revisions while directing the trial Court to hear arguments on 14.07.2025.

What the court decided

AI extract

Nandala Laxminandam Vs Chettipalli Rama Devi — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH^{COURT FOR THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND^{AND TWENTYFIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEK.LAKSHMAN}

¶6

CIVIL REVISION^{PETITION Nos:21 14 and15MOF2025}

¶7

CIVIL REVISION^{PETITIO N No:2114 OF2025}

¶8

Petition under Article^{227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order} dated 09i04/2025^{Passedin l.A.No.360f 2025 in o.s.No.158 0t 2012 0n the file} of the Court of the^{Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar'}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Nandala Laxminandam,^{s/o late Pochalu,age.61years,Occ-private worker'} H/o ff .No.t-szS, Choppidanaid^{Mandal, and Karimnagar District'}

¶11

...Petitioner

¶12

AN6

¶13

1 Chettipalli Rama Devi,^{Wo Ravi, Aged. 48 years, H'No' 16-211 , Choppadandi} village and Mandal,^{KarimnagarDistrict}

¶14

2 Kolluri Anianevulu, s/o^{Lachaiah, age . 54 years, R/o H No' 6-46'} Choppad6ndi village^{and Mandal, KarimnagarDistrict}

¶15

...Respondents

¶16

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in support of the petition,the High court may be- pleased-.to} trant^{stayof all further pioceedings in the suit in O...S.No.158 ot 2012 on the file} 3t ine erincipal Senior^{iivit .lrOgJf"rimnagarpending disposalof the C.R.P.}

¶18

CIVIL REVISI^{ON PETITION No:1544OF 2025}

¶19

Petition under Anicle^{227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order} dated 09/04/2025^{Passedin l.A.No.120f 2025 in o.s.No.158 0f 2012 0n the file} of the Court of the Principal^{Senior Civil Judge, at Karimnagar'}

¶20

Between:

¶21

Nandala Laxminandam, s/o late Pochalu, age.61 years,C cc.private worker, R/o H.No.1-575, Choppadanaid Mandal, and Karimnagar Distriit.

¶22

...Petitioner

¶23

AND

¶24

1 Cheftipalli Rama Devi, Wo Ravi, Aged. 48 years, H.No.^'16.;2/'1 , Choppadandi village and Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶25

2 Kolluri Anjaneyulu. sio Lachaiah, age . 54 years, Rio H.No 0-46, Choppadandi village and Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶26

... Respondents

¶27

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶28

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ:rrmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in the suit in O.S. No.158 ,tf 2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judgel(arimnagar.

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sffl. R LAXMINARASIMHA RAO

¶30

Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI SREENIVASA SARMA

¶31

The\Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶32

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN} CTVTL REVISI^{ON PETITION Nos.2 114 and} 1 544 of2025.

¶33

coMMON^ORDER:

¶34

. Heard Sri R.^{Lakshmi Narsimha Rao' learned counsel} for the^{petitionerand Sri S' SrinivasaSharma'learned} counsel for^{the respondents'Perused the record'}

¶35

2.C.R.P.No.2l14of2025isfrledbythepetitioner/plaintiff challenging^{the order dated O9'04'2025in I'A'No'36 of 2025} in O.S.No.158^{of 2OI2 passedby the learned Principal Senior} Civil Judge, at^Karirnnagar'

¶36

Likewise,^{petitioner/plaintifffried C'R'P'No'1544 of 2025} challenging the^{order datedO9'O4'2025irt I'A'No'12 of 2025} in O.S.No.15^{a of 2Ol2 by the very same Court'}

¶37

Petitioner/plaintiff^{filed a suit inO'S'No'158of 2Ol2} against the^{respondents/defendaltsseeking declaration of} title; to^{declarethe registered Gift Setflement Deed bearing} document^{No.1941 of 1997, dated 29'O3'1997 and sale deed} bearing document^{No.2420 of 2072, dated19'O4'2012as null} and void. In the^{said Suit' the plaintiff had frled art} application under^{Order XXVIRule 9 of the Code of Civil}

.i 'l \l\

Procedure, 19O8 to appoint Advocate Commissioner and the sarne was dismissed by the learned tria_l Court. Tl-rerefore, he has hled a reyision ald this Court disposed o I the said revision directing the trial Court to appoint a;-r Advocate Commissioner. In compliance w.ith the said order, an Advocate Commissioner was,appointed and he has Iiled his report. Without considering the objections fileC by the petitioner/plaintiff, the learned trial Court accepted the said report. Therefore, the petitioner/plaintiff filed one more Interlocutory Application in Order XXVI Rule 9 ot C.p.C to appoint 2"d Advocate Commissioner and the said application was also dismissed. Petitioner filed a revision before this Court and the same was allowed directing the learned trial Court to appoint 2.d Advocate Commissioner. In <::mplialce with the said order, 2nd Advocate Commissioner was appointed.

¶42

In the said suit, the petitioner/plaintiff examined himself as PW. I and also examined the inclependent witnesses as PW.2. Thereafter, his evidence was closed. He has filed an Interlocutory Application uide I.A.No.299 of 2023 in O.S.No.158 of 2OI2 urrder Section 151 of C.p.C to reopen

the said suit for further^{evidenceand the said applicationwas} dismissed on 06.O6.2023.^{Challengingthe said order, the} petitioner herein has frled a revision^{uide C.R-P.No-2855of} 2023 and uide order dated^{14. 11.2023, this Courtallowed the} said C.R.P setting aside the order dated^{O4.O7.2O23 In} I.A.No.299 of 2023, subject to^{payment of Rs.5,000/- to the} District Legal Services Authorit5r,^{Karimnagar. This Court also} directed the plaintiff to conclude the^{evidencewithina period} of two months from the^date of^{receiptof a copy of the said} order. This Court also directed both^{the partiesto cooperate} with the trial Court in disposal^of the^{said suit, since it is of} theyear 2012.

¶47

Petitioner had frled another revision r,zde^{C.R.P.No.20OO} of 2024 stating that instead of^posting the^{matterfor further} evidence of plaintiff, the trial Court has^{postedthe matter for} defendarrts' evidence on 12.O3.2024. On consideration^{of the} said facts, uide order dated 1L.O7.2024, this Court^disposed of the said revision directing the learned trial Court to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to examine three more witnesses i.e., PWs.3 to 5 frrst and then record the defendants' evidence including cross-examination of DW.3. This Court also directed

\II.^ -

the petitioner /platntiff to cooperate with the trial Court in disposal of the suit i.e., O.S.No.158 of 201.2, in terms of the order dated 14.1I.2023 in C.R.P.No.2855 of 2023. This Court also observed that the same is the 4th C.R.p. filed before this Court by the petitioner/plaintiff. Therefore, this Court directed the trial Court to make an endeavor to dis,pose of the suit in accordance with law by conducting proceed:ngs on day to day basis.

¶53

¶54

Thereafter, the petitioner has filed an Irrterlocutory Application uide I.A.No.l2 of 2O2S under Secti,:n 151 of C.P.C. to reopen the .case for the purpose of sending Ex.B. 1 and Ex.A.21 and Vakalathnama of the petitioner/plaintiff for comparison of signatures and thumb impressions; and also frled I.A'No.36 of 2o2s under Rule r29 of the ci'.I Rures of Practice arrcl Circular Order, lggO r/w Section 1Sl of C.p.C. to call for the records i.e., signatures. and thumb irrpression register from the Joint Sub-registrar, Karimnagar, pertaining to the registered sale deed bearing document N r.4 124 of I974, datid 06.t2.lg74 (Ex.A.21) and registered glft settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of 19,17, dated 29.03.1997 (Ex.B1) on the following grounds:

¶55

G F*(//

¶56

¶57

"The^{said suit was posted for judgment'In} the said suit, defendant^No. 1^{filed original} forged regd. gift settlement^{deed bearing} document No.1941 of^{1997,dated29.03 1997} ' it was marked as Ex.B1,^{the said documentwas} not executed by his^{father and petitionerhas} not attested as^{witness to the said document,} his father has executed^{regd. sale deed} document beairng^{No.4124of1974, dated} O6.12.L974 during^{his lifetime, which is marked} as Ex.A21. Therefore,^{it is essentialto prove his} claim to summon the^{Joint Sub-registrar,} Karminagar to^{pro'ducethe offrce recordsi'e',} thumb impressions^{registerpertaining to the} regd. sale deed^{bearing document No'1424 of} 1974, dated 06.12.1974^{from the Joint Sub-} registrar, Karimnagar^{and to sent it for expert's} opinion for comparison^{ofsignatures and} thumb impressions of his^{deceasedfather} (Nandala Pochalu)."

¶58

Respondents opposed^{the said applicationcontending} that the^{petitioner has been hling frted one after the other} Interlocutory^{Applications,therea-fterrevisions to protractthe} litigation. He is^{notdiligent. Despite granting ample} opportunity by^{the learned trial Court as well as this Court'} petitioner herein failed^{to utilisethe same and he has frled the} aforesaid applications^{without any basis'}

¶59

¶60

¶61

Vide order dated 09.04.2025, the learned trial Court dismissed I.A.No.36 of 2025 holding that petitioner is not diligent in filing the aforesaid applications, and there is a delay in liiing the said petitions. He has filed I.A.No.454 of 2022 to summon the Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar. The said application was dismissed on 29.11.2022 and the said order has attained hnality. Instead of proceeding with t1.r e suit, the petitioner has filed I.A. after I.A. and also rev.sion aJter revlsl0n.

¶62

Vide separate order dated 09.04.2025, the lerrned trial Court dismissed I.A.No. 12 of 2025 holding that the plaintiff got examined himself as PW. 1, marked Exs.A. 1 to A.25 and he was also cross-examined at length. Defendal: No. 1 got examined herself as DW. 1 and marked Exs.D t to D.6. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner/pleLintiff liled severa-l Interlocutory Applications and after the I.As were disposed of, the petitioner has frled Civil Revision petitions before this Court. The learned trial Court also placed reliance on the order dated 11.07.2024 in C.R.p.No.2OOO of 2024. Thus, according to the trial Court despite grant.ing ample opportunity to the petitioner/plaintiff, he did not rrtilize the

¶63

¶64

same and filed the present applications without mentioning sufficient reasons. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner frled the present Civil Revision Petitions,

¶65

Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the three grounds on which trial Court dismissed the Interlocutory Applications aIe contrary to record. Petitioner is always diligent. Order 29.11.2022 in I.A.No.454 of 2022 has not attained hnality. Filing I.As and revlslons ls the right of the petitioner. Defendant No.2 did not'file any written statement in the suit ald filed counters in the aforesaid I.As. Defendant No.l did not file counters in ttre said I.As. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by this Court in Waheeda Begum

¶66

as. Md.Yakubt and contended that the trial Court has to grant fair oppqrtunity to him. Without considering the said aspect, the learned trial Court dismissed the aforesaid two applications, therefore, he sought to set aside the orders impugned in these Civil Revision Petitions

¶67

'^{zo2t ScC} OnLine tS 2222

¶68

¶69

¶70

12.^{Whereas, Sri S' SrinivasaSharma' learned counsel for} the respondents^{wouldcontend that on considering all the} grounds^{raised by both the ptaintiff and defendalts'the trial} Court^{passed order dated O9'04'2025 dismissinS; I'A'Nos'12} There^{is no error in it} Petitioner^{has been} and 36^{of 2O25'} There^{is no} filing^{petitionafter petition and C'R'P after C'R'P} With the^{said subrnissions'he} error^{in the imPugned orders'} sought^{to dismiss the presentCivil Revision Petitrons'}

¶71

¶72

13.^{As discussedsupra' the petitioner herein.ras filed the} aforesaid^{suit seekingdeclaration of titleand trr declare tJle} registered^{sale deed bearing documentNo'4124 of1974'} dated^{06. 12.1974and registered gift settlementdeed bearing} document^{No'1941 of1997} '^{dated 29'03'1997 as null and} void. He^{has filed the Interlocutory Applicalionsseeking} appointment^{of Advocate Commissionerand alsc 2"d Advocate} Commissioner.^{He has liledC'R'P'No'2855of2023'} challenging^{the order passed by the learned-rial Court in} LA.No.299^{of 2023 hled by him to reopen the suit for further} evidence.ThesaidC.R.P.wasdisposedofandI.A.No.2g9of 2023^{was allowed subject to payment of costs ol Rs'5'000/-'}

¶73

¶74

It is relevant^{to note that petitionerfiled I.A.No.454of} 2022 trLder Order XVI^{RuIe 6 read with Section 151 of C.P.C} seeking to summon the Joint^{Sub-Registrar,Karimnagar, to} produce the record pertaining to forged^{and fabricated} registered gift deed bearing document^{No.l941 of 1997, dated} 29.03.1997 and registered^{sale deed bearing document} No.242O of 2OI2 for the^{purpose ofsending thesaid} documents to compare^{the signatures. Vide orderdated} 29.11.2022, the learned trial^{Court dismissedthe said} application holding that as^{per the petitionaverments both} the aforesaid documents are^{public documents as theyare} defined. If the documents^{are registered, they become public} documents and the^party in^{whose name the property} registered, should^possess those^{documents in original. If the} documents are proposed to be^{summonedthrough Joint Sub-} Registrar, Karimnagar, through^{which documents,the} signatures are to be compared and^{also possessionof the} original documents. If the original^{documents are inthe} possession of respondents/defendants, there^{shouldbe a} procedure under the Indian^Evidence Act for^{production of} documents. Therefore, if the^{petitioner intends to summon the}

¶75

¶76

documents, he has to hle petition to summon the documents through defendarts. Without taking steps, he heLs filed the said application after lapse of 1O years, that too at the stage of further evidence of plaintiff. He has not mentioned sufficient/ proper reasons. There is no challenge r-o the sajd oider. It attained finality. Therefore, learned courLsel for the petitioner can't contend that it has not attained hnzdity.

¶77

As discussed supra, the petitioner has filecl a re'rision uide C.R.P.No.200O of 2024 contending that insteacl of posting the suit for further evidence of plaintiff, the learned triat Court posted the said matter for the defendants' evidence on 12.03.2024. On considering the riva,l submission and order dated 14.11.2023 in C.R.P.No.2855 of 2023, lhis Court disposed of the said C.R.P directing the learned trial Court to permit the petitioner/plaintiff to examine tbree more witnesses i.e., PWs.3 to 5 first and then record the defendants' evidence including cross-examination of DW.3. This Court also directed both the parties to coopera:e with the trial Court and also directed the trial Court to disprose of the said suit, as expeditiously as possible. Thereafter, the petitioner/plaintiff has fited the aforesaid I.As.

¶78

(

¶79

,+a.,l ,! 1-:r..,ii,tt.*.

-4r

,/'

,/,

As discussed supra, the aforesaid suit frled by the petitioner/plaintiff seeking for declaration of title and also to declare the gift settlement deed and registered sale deed as null and void, contending that defendant No.1 and her husband created gift settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of L997 , dated 29.03.7997 stealthy, while impersonating his father and forging his father's signatures. Therefore, he sought to declare the gift settlement deed bearing document No.1941 of 1997, dated 29.03.1997 and the sale deed bearing, document No.242O of 2012, dated 19.04.2012 as null and void. This Court granted arnple opportunity to the petitioner herein to prove the said claim. He has also filed the aforesaid two I.As and two revisions to appoint l"t Advocate Commissioner and 2"d Advocate Commissioner. The sarne were allowed. This Court also allowed the other two C.R.Ps filed by him.

¶85

In compliance with the order dated 11.07.2024 in C.R.P.No.2OOO of 2024, the learned trial Court has examined PW.3 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, PW.4 - SubRegistrar, Karimnagar and PW.S - 2"d Advocate Commissioner. The said depositions of PWs.3 to 5 were

¶86

¶87

¶88

recorded in the month^of September,2024.^{Ex.B.1is the gift} settlement deed and Ex.A.2l^{is the sale deed Petitioner} sought to declare the^{aforesaidtwo documentselrs null and} void. Thereafter, the^{petitioner has hled I.A.No.12 of 2024 in} the month of December, 2024^{and I.A.No.36of 2Lt)25 in the} month of February , 2025 to reopen^{his eviden:efor the} purpose of sending Ex.B. 1 and Ex'A'21,^{his sigrtatureson} vakalathnama for comparison,^{etc., ald to ca-ll for the records} respectively in the^{mannerstatedabove.}

¶89

As discussed supra, the^{earlier application filed by the} petitioner uide 1.A.No.454 of 2022 with the^{samer,:lief i.e., to} slrmmon the Joint Sub-Registrar,^Karimnagal ,^{and to} produce the record^pertains to^{forged andfabricated} registered gift deed^{bearing documentNo.1941 of 1997, dated} 29.O3.1997 ald registered^{sale deed bearing document} No.242O of 2072^{was dismisseduide order dated :29.11.2022} on merits. Learned^{tria-l Courtassigned specificI'easonsfor} dismissal of the said I.A.^{Without challenging the order dated} 29.11.2022 in^{i.A.No.454of 2022, the petitioner again filed} I.A.No.36 of 2025^{with the same} relief.^{The rnatter was} reopened twice. Ample^opportunity was^given to^the

¶90

-I

¶91

¶92

petitioner. He has not availed the said opportunity alforded by this Court and also by the. learned trial Court. There is no dispute that the petitioner has frled several Interlocutory Applications. The said applications were dismissed on merits. He has filed revisions, the sarne were disposed of in the manner stated supra. He Iiled two I.As. to reopen his evidence and summon the documents. The relief sought in I.A.No.454 of 2022 and the relief sought in I.A.No.36 of 2025 is one and the sarne i.e., to sumrnon the Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, ald to prodpce the record pertains to forged and fabricated registered gift deed bearing document No.1941 of 7997, dated 29.03.1997 and registered sale deed bearing document No.242O of 2OI2 for the purpose of sending the documents to compare the signatures. The earlier application i.e., I.A.No.454 of 2022 was dismissed on 29.1 I.2022 itself. Without challenging the said order, he has filed I.A.No.36 of 2025 with the same relief. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court dismissed both I.A.Nos.12 of 2025 and 36 of 2025

¶93

19 . It is relevant to note that the petitioner herein has filed

¶94

a complaint under Section 2OO of Cr.p.C. against the

¶95

¶96

¶97

respondents aird three others for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 42O,421,424, 465,506 an<l 468 read with Sections 34 and 1O9 of IPC. The sarne was referred to Choppadandi Police Station, who in turn, registere,l a case in Crime No.171 of 2013.The Investigating Officer har; filed final report treating the sarne as civil in nature. Petitioner herein has filed protest petition. The said petition was dirimissed by the learned trial Court. Challenging the same, petitioner filed Criminal Revision Petition No.6 1 of 2O 16

¶98

In the said revision, he liled an applicirtion uide Crl.M.P.No.474 of 2024 to send admitted thumb irnpressions and signatures of the aforesaid registered rlocuemtns executed by his father in favour of respondent No.l to FSL, Hyderabad, for comparison of admitted and dispu:ed thumb impressions ald signatures by expert and opinion. Vide order dated 30.1O.2024, learned Principal Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, dismissed the said revision petition.

¶99

2l . In the said order, there is mention about the petitioner filing Crl.M. P.No.8 1 of 2022 before the Revisional Court under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. seeking revisional Court to direct the

¶100

¶101

¶102

Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, to produce office records of the aforesaid registered documents on the ground that the original signatures of the father of the petitioner were available in the said documents and to send the said documents to the expert for comparison of the signatures of the father. Revisional Court dismissed the said revision uide order dated L5.O8.2O22.

¶103

Challenging the said order, petitioner has filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. urde Crl.P.No.8318 of 2022. Vide order dated 10.06.2024, this Court disposed of the same directing the trial Couit to call for the record by fixing the time, at the earliest. Revisional Court called for the records containing the thumb impressions and sign atures with regard to registered sale deed bearing document No.4l24 of I97 4 , dated 06.12.1974 executed by the petitioner's father in favour of Sripathi Rajamallu and thumb impressions and signatures register with regard to registered gift settlement deed bearing document No. 1941 of 1997, dated 29.O8.1997 executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.1. Revisional Court received thumb impression registers of Vol.No.83 of 1974 and Vo1.No.l78 of 1997 frort the Office of the Sub-Registrar,

¶104

¶105

Karimnagar.^{After receiving those registers' petitionerherein} frled petition^{under Section 39 BSA' 2023 (Section45 of the} Indial^{EvidenceAct) for comparison of thumbinrpressions} and signatures^{of theexecutants availablejnthumb} impression^{registersof Vo1'No'83 of 1974and Vol'No'178of} L997 bY^{Forensic ExPert'}

¶106

On con^{siderationof the aforesaid facts and also law laid} down by the^{Apex Court, learned revisionalCourtconsidered} the asPect^{asto whether revisiona'lCourt has 1.o order for} further enquiry^{under Section397 and 398 of Cr.P'C'bY} of 2024 and^{to u'hatextent} enquiring^{into Crl.M'P'No'474} authority^{can be exercised as revisional Court' Itinally uide} order dated^{3O.lO -2024 revisionalCourt disrnissedthe} revision filed^{by the petitioner confirming the order dated} l4.Og.2016^{passed by thelearned trialCourt in} Crl.M.P.No.1339^{of 2015 in CrimeNo' l7l of 2Ol3' pending on} the frle^{of ChoppadandiPolice Station'}

¶107

Petitioner^{filed a petition under Section 5128 of BNSS} challenging^{the said order uide Crl'P'No'16435ctf 2024 and} the same^{is pending. Petitionersuppressedthe :;aid facts in}

¶108

(

¶109

¶110

the affrdavits filed in I.A.No.36 of 2025 and I.A.No.12 of 2025 in O.S.No.158 of 2012.

¶111

The aforeSaid suit is of the year 2012. Petitioner should be diligent while prosecuting his case, He cal't hle severa-l I.As. for reopen and to summon the said records, and he can't file two I.As. with the same relief. It is relevant to note that the petitioner examined PW.3 - Joint Sub-Registrar, Karimnagar, PW. 4 - Sub - Re^gi s trar, Karimnagar.

¶112

¶113

I l\t

¶114

As discussed supra, On consideration of the aforesaid aspects, learned trial Court dismissed both the applications uide separate orders dated 09.04.2025. Both the orders are reasoned and well-founded. Petitioner herein failed to^make out any ground to interfere with the said orders.

¶115

27 . At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff would submit that the tria,l Court has posted^{the suit on} O3.O7.2O25, on which date, he has liled a^{memo requesting} the trial Court to adjourn the suit till^{disposal of} the^present revisions. But without considering^{the same and} without^even hearing the plaintiff, learned trial Court^posted the suit^for judgment to 24.07.2025. In proof of the same, he has frled

¶116

¶117

copy of the said memo ald e-Courts proceedings of the said suit.

¶118

¶119

In the light of the same, learned trial Court is directed to hear both petitioner/plaintiff and respondents/delendants on

¶120

14.07.2025. Learned counsel for the plaintil and the defendants shall proceed with the arguments arrl cooperate with the learned trial Court for disposal of th e said suit without seeking adjournments.

¶121

With the above observations, these Cir.il Revision Petitions are dismissed. i(o costs.

¶122

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitic,ns, if any,

¶123

pending in these C.R.Ps. sha1l stand closed

¶124

//TRUE COPY//

¶125

SI)/- MOHD.ISMAIL
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
I

¶126

<br>I
it
SI:CTION OFFICER

till

To,

The Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar. 2. One CC to Sri R. Laxminarasimha Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Sreenivasa Sarma, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

NVB/PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED:0810712025

e oF T€t !
.)
v
.$
+
oc<
Ll_ S
\
,.: ,
..i'

¶137

COMMON ORDER

¶138