Smt. Datrika Jaya Sree Vs Bodkam Venkata Rama Rao

Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndra, against the Order Dated 2404.2025 passed in l.A.No 109 of 2025 in 0.5.6 of 2022 on the file of the Judge Family court cum-lll, Additional District & Sessions Jude at Nizamabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Smt. Datrika Jaya Sree, Wo. Satyanarayana, Age.52 Years, House Hold, Rio.HNo.6-6-4/2/4, Flat.No.22lA, Gandhinagar, Behind C G.O Towers, Secunderabad.

¶12

Maya Sujatha, Wo. Rajaram, Age. 49 Years, Household, R/o.Subash Road, Kamareddy, District, Kamareddy.

¶13

Karipe Madhuri @ Kasturi, Wo. Rajeshwar Rao, Age. 45 years, Rio. H.No. 1-10-25411 , Metpally Town, District, Jagtial

¶14

...Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶15

AND

¶16

'1. Bodkam Venkata Rama Rao, S/o. Laxmi Narsaiah, Age 55 years, Occu. Business R/o. FIat No.101, Bhavani Enclave apartment, Near, Sri Medha High School, South Kamala Nagar, ECIL, Secunderabad.

¶17

Bodkam Bharathi, Wio. Late laxmi Narsaiah, Age. 74 years, House hold, R/o. H.No.6-'14-60, Namdevwada, Nizamabad, Dist. Nizamabad.

¶18

... Respondents/Defendants

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶20

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. No. 6 of 2022, on the file of the Judge Family Court-Cum-lll, Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, pending d isposal of the CRP.

¶21

Er*-g

¶22

CRP.No.2235 oF 2025

¶23

Petition under Arlicle 227 of constitution of lndia, against the order Dated 2404.2025 passed in l.A.No'109 of 2025 in 0.5.6 ol 2022 c,n the file o. the Judge Family Court-Cum-lllAdditional Distrrct & Sessions Jude at Nrztrmabad

¶24

Between:

¶25

1 !Tt, ??trtq .]1Vq Srge Wo. Satyanarayana, Age 52 ye::rs, House Hotd, R/o H No 6-6-4/2/4, Flat No.22lA,- Gandhinagar,- Br:t-ind C G 3 Toweri, Secunderabad

¶26

Maya Sujatha, W/o. Rajaram, Age- 4g years,Househrr l, R/o.Subash Road, Kamareddy, Dist- Kamareddy^-

¶27

3 fqrp:_YgOhuri @ Kasturi, Wo. Rajeshwar Rao,/ Age 45 years, R/o. H No. 1 -1 0-2541 1, tr,letpally town, Dist- Jagtial

¶28

..Petitioner/Plaintiffs

¶29

AND

¶30

Bodkam Venkata Rama Rao, S/o.Laxmi Narsaiah, Age 5ri years, O:cu_ Business R/o F at No.101. Bhavani enclave apartme-nt I- ilL. Secunderabad

¶31

2 Bodkam Bharathi, Wo. Late Laxmi Narsaiah, Age- 74 y::rrs, House hold. R/o H. No.6- 14-60. Namdevwada, Nizamabad, Dist- Nizamat,ad

¶32

... Res pc,n dents/Defenda nts

¶33

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶34

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circ.rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court m a,, be pleased to stay all further proceedings in o.S. No. 6 of 2022, on the file of thr; Judge Family courtcum-lll Additional District and sessions Nizamabad, pending oisposat of the cRp.

¶35

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K.SAISRUTHIN RAO

¶36

Counsel for the Respondents: --

¶37

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶38

ry

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶40

CML REVISION PETITION Nos.2216 and,2235 OF 2025

¶41

COMMON ORDER:

¶42

Since the issue involved is interconnected, the Civil Rerrision Petitions are heard together and being disposecl of br. this cornmon order

¶43

C.R.P.No.2216 of 2025 is filed challenging thc ordcr, daled 24.O4.2025 passed in I.A.No.1 1O ol 2025 in O-S.No.6 t'tl''2O22 on the file of lcarned Judge, Family Court cum III Additional District:rnd Scssions .Iuclge at Nizamabad.

¶44

C.R.P.No.2235 ol 2025 is filcd challenging thc order, clated 24.O4.2025 passed in I.A.No. l09 ol 202.5 in O.S.No.6 ol 2022 on the file of learned Judge, Family CourL cum lll Aclditional District ancl Sessions Judge at Nizamabad.

¶45

4 - The petitioner is the plair-rtiff in thc suit, and the^prcscnt inlerlocutory applications n,ere filed seeking^permisston to recall^P.W.1 for the purpose of marking certain documents, as^well as to^receive certified copies of pahanies^pertaining to the vears¹⁹⁹⁶ to^{2018 into} evidence.

J I

{

2

Bricfl1' stated, the petitroner sought to recall l, W.. (thc plainriff himself) in ordr:r to mark the aforementioncd doctr:r l rts. Ilou,r;r.er, the trial Court, taking into consideration the stage o[ ]l ( pr()c('e(lings ancl thc absence ol anv reasonable justification stat, r in tlle )etitions dcclined both tl'rc re(lucst to rccall P.W. 1 and thc Pirrr or t() l-coeive the additional document:rry cvidence.

¶50

Learned ,)ounsel for the pctitioner submits I t;r thr: pctitioner is prepared to lile arppropriate appiications befrrr t. the triaI Court explaining the reasons for seeking to place the docun cnts ort rc:ord. I{r-. l'urLhcr plt-ads th:rt, as the suit pertains to partirlrr, zrll palties iirc cntitlccl to a siralc irr thc propertl', and the ends⁽ : jlrs(i( e r,rould bc servrd br aflordrn,-r thc pcritioner an opportunit\ pr'( ,'rr rr-icrirrrl docurnents. Acr:orclingly, it is prayed that libertl,mir\ 'r(: ilrantcd to thc petitioner to fiI,: lrcsl-r arpplicalions before the trial⁽ ,,rrt, :u1d that tl)e Lrial Court may bc dirccted to consider such applicr l i rr-ts or-t tlreir ourr merits, expeditiousl-y.

¶51

I have pclr..Lscd Lhc material on record

¶52

The petitioncr's rcquest to file fresh applicati,r'r -. .rssignin3 proper and sulficient reasons for recalling P.W. 1 and fol cceLvir.rg certilled copies of thc pctharies lbr the years 1996 to 2(^| | t'1, is found not objectionable. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Pctit ot-rs are rlisposed of with the obsen,ation that the petitioner is at lilr rrtl to filc fi'esh( I applications belb|e tl're trial Court. Upon such filin,r. r ,' l(.1r-ne(l .Juc13cj

¶53

rew ."ltat"*t . ..:.,

¶54

J)

¶55

Family Court, is d irected to consider tl-re said applications on their orvn meriLs and in accordance u,ith law, and to dispose of them on priority Therc shall be no order as to costs

¶56

Pending miscellaneous applications, if anv, shall stand closed

¶57

SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

E TION OFFICER

To,