Disposed¶35

Chinthireddy Sarala v. Gopu Narayan Reddy

Telangana HC22 Aug 2025CRP/2929/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court CRP No. 2929 of 2025; Justice N. Tukaramji; decided 22-08-2025; Article 227 Constitution of India; expedited disposal of final decree application I.A.No.461 of 2024 in partition suit O.S.No.10 of 1999 (Principal Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar); preliminary decree dated 20.01.2004 confirmed on dismissal of appeal A.S.No.2334 of 2004 on 18.01.2023; direction to trial Court to decide within three months of next adjournment; disposed of, no costs; petitioner Chinthireddy Sarala; counsel Ponnam Ashok Goud.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition disposed of with a direction to the trial Court to accord priority to I.A.No.461 of 2024 in O.S.No.10 of 1999 and pass appropriate orders at the earliest, preferably within three months from the date of the next adjournment; no costs ordered. ¶35

Chinthireddy Sarala Vs Gopu Narayan Reddy — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217 |

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2929 OF 2025

¶7

Appeal under aiicle 227 of constitution of lndia against the order in l.A.No.46'l of 2024 in O.S.No.'10 of 20 1999 on the file of the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Chinthireddy Sarala, Wo. Rampgopal Reddy, Aged about.49 years, Occ.Housewise Rl/ o. Kannapur village, Shankarapatnam Mandal, Karimnagar District, presently residing at H.No.10-2-760, Vidhyanagar Locality of Karimnagar Town.

¶10

...Petitioner/Plaintiff

¶11

AND

¶12

'1 . Gopu Narayan Reddy, S/o. Raji Reddy, Aged about.76 years, Occ. Ag ricultu re,

¶13

Gopu lndira, D/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged about.47 years, Occ. Private Lecturer,

¶14

Gopu Geetha, D/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged about.45 years, Occ. House wife,

¶15

Gopu Bharathi, W/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged about 66 years, Occ.House wife, The Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are residents of H. No. 8-3-275, Ramachandrapur Colony, Karimnagar Town.

¶16

Nelaveni Veeraiah, S/o. Samuel Aged about. 61 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Pachunoor village, Manakondur [V1andal, Karimnagar Distirct.

¶17

... Respondents/Defendants

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI PONNAM ASHOK GOUD

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: ---

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE N.TUIO\RAMJI

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2929 cF 2025

¶23

ORDER:

¶24

This civit Revision Petition is fired to expedit: rhe adjudication of 1.A.No.461 of 2024 in O.S No 10 of 1999 on the f te of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Karimnagar.

¶25

Heard Mr.P.Ashok Goud, Iearned counsel for ltre petitioner

¶26

The suit, O.S.No.10 of 1999, was institutecl by the petitioner seeking partiti<ln and separate possession of ti e plaint schedule properties. By ludgment and decree dated 20.01.20(14, the trlal Cou( decreed the suit, directing partition of item Nos. 1, 2,3,5to 7, and item No. 10 (measuring Ac.0.02 guntas), together with the {ichedule_B house property, into four equal shares, and allotment of onr, ;uch share to the petitioner.

¶27

Aggrieved, the respondents/defendants prefe.r,:d an appeal in A.S.No.2334 of 2004. The appellate Court, however, br judgment dated 18.01 .2023, dismissed the appeal and confirmed he judgment and preliminary decree of the trial Court.

¶28

Subsequently, the petitioner filed 1.A.No.461 ,tf 2024, seeking a final decree on the basis of the Advocate-commissi<) r.r's report, so as to effect pafttion of the suit schedule properties, nam.l,,, item Nos. 1, 2, 3,5 to 7, and item No. 10 (measuring Ac.2.O2 guntesr, along with the

Schedule-B house property, into four-equal shares by metes and bounds, and to allot one such one-fourth share to the petitioner in accordance with the preliminary decree dated 20.01.2004.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final decree petition has been pending since 2024, and despite completion of the procedural formalities, the final decree has not yet been passed. lt is contended that such prolonged delay is causing grave inconvenience and prejudice to both the petitioner and the respondents. Hence, counsel prays for a direction for expeditious disposal of the interlocutory applica tion

¶34

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, and noting that the suit itself dates back to the year 1999, it is evident that substantial delay has already occurred in the final decree proceedings. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to accord priority to the matter and to pass appropriate orders at the earliest possible opportunity, preferably within three months from the date of the next adjourn ment

¶35