Disposed

N. Lalitha Patel (Died) v. Srikanth Patel Goud

Telangana HC7 Oct 2025CRP/3326/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Decree holder sought expeditious disposal of a long-pending claim petition in execution proceedings arising out of a partition decree. The court held delay was not wholly attributable to the claim petitioner and directed the trial court to dispose of the claim petition within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally to dispose of the claim petition in E.A. No. 5 of 2022 in E.P. No. 239 of 2022 within eight months; no costs.

N. Lalitha Patel (Died) Vs Srikanth Patel Goud — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³⁴⁴² ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3326 OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order in E.A No 5 of 2022 (old E A No 84 ot 2018) in E.P.No.239 of 2022 (old E.P.No 10 of 2012) in lA No 1989 of^'1999 in (old Os.No.183 of 1990) dt. 11106/'1 999 on the file of the court of the Senior Civil Judge Kukatpally, I,tledchal Malkajgiri District

¶8

(Amended as per the Court order Dated 15.09.2025 in the cause title the O.S.No. wrongly Mentioned as O S No 2543 of 2020 in place of Os.No.183 of 1990 and also in the prayer Colum of lhe CRP No.3326 of 2024 by deleting the word^"Advancing" added as^.'Disposed of^'vide l A.No 1 of 2025 in CRP No.3326 of 2024 and herewith enclosing fair Copy of EB.)

¶9

Between:

¶10

N Lalitha Patel (DIED) (Died as per Lr/Petitioner No.2)

¶11

N. Sudeep Raj, S/o. Late Babaiah Patel. Aged about. 48^years, Occ Business, R/o H No 6-1-107 , Raju Colony, Balanagar, Hyderabad-42.

¶12

...Petitioner/DHR

¶13

AND

¶14

Srikanth Patel Goud, S/o N. Goverdhan Patel Goud, Aged about 49^years, Occ. Business. R/ o. H.No.6-1-'1 , Balanagar, Hyderabad-42.

¶15

...RespondenUClaim Petitioner

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI SURESH SHIV SAGAR

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI PALANATI LAKSHMAN

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA^-

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3326 of 2024 '

¶21

ORDER:

¶22

Hearcl Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar. [r:arned <'<>unscl lirr the revision petitioner/ decree holder and Sri Palanati Lakshman, lcarned counsel for the respondent/claim petitioner. Perused the rccord.

¶23

This Civil Revision Petition is filecl secking cxpeditious disposal o[ the claim petition in E.A. No. 5 of 2022 lold tr.A. No. 84 of 2018) in E.P. No. 239 of 2022 (old E.P. No. 10 of 2O12) pcnding on lhe filc of lcarned Senior Civil Judgc, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri DistriL:t.

¶24

Iloth the learned counsel have narra[ed the history of liling of a suit lor partition, passing of prelimir-rar-1. de<'rec nnd passing ol final decrce in O.S. No. 183 of 1990. Sceking Execution thrrcof, lhc tr.P. No. 10 n'as fited in the ycar 2012. Pcnding E.P., in the rcar 2O18, clairn petition was filed. ln the said claim petition, petitioner No.2 herein filed a petition i.e., E.A. No. 21 of 2O19 under Order I l?ulc lO ol the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to strike off respondcnt Nos.2 to 14 and rhc said petitior-r was allowed on O2.O7.2019. The said order u.:rs challenged by way of C.R.P.No.2637 of 2019. 'i'lre C.R.P. was clismisseci uide order dated O2.O8.2O19. Aggrieved by the same, a rcview. perition u irs prcferred uide I.A.No.4 ot 2022 in C.R.P.No.2637 of 2()19. The revicu, pcririon i.e., t.A. No. 4 of 2022 was allou,ed on 23. I1.2023 and re sponclent No.2 was

RY,.J dp 3326²⁰²⁴

ordered to be added as responck:,t in the claim petition. currently, respondent No.2 is added as a part]. respondent in the claim petition i.e., E.A.No.S of 2022 (old E.A. No. 84 of 2O 18). There are 14 rvitnesses who have filed their chief affidavits and they have to bc cross-examined.

¶29

On one hand, learncd counsel fbr the revision petitioner/ decree holder submitted that his clicnt is r-rnable to enjoy ttre fruits of the decree in spite o[ getting a final decrec u':l back in the year 20 12. Whereas, learned counsel for lhe rcspondcnt hcrein /ctaim petitioner would submit that the blame for delay cannot bc attriburcd to thc responclent herein as the E.P.No. 10 was filed in the ycar 2Ol2 and the claim petition was hled in the year 2018. Ever sincc filing ol the claim petition on account of striking off respondent No.2, there rvas delay in prosecuting the Civil Revision Petition i.e., C.R.P. No. 2637 of 2019 and the review petition i.e., I.A. No. 4 of 2022.

¶30

[n view of the aforeme rl tio nccl facls :rnd cit'cumstances^<;f tile^<:ase, this Court is of the considered opinion that the onlts lor the^{delay cannot} be completely attributed to the respondent herein/claim^{pctitiorrer. It is} also noted that a decree passed in the^year 2O12 remains^unexecuted even in the year 2O25. Since, there are 14^{witncsses to be cross} examined, this Court is not inclined to llx the time^{frame of two (02)} months lor disposal of the claim^pctition in^{E.A. No. 5 of 20'22 (old tr.A.} No. 84 of 2018) in El.P. No. 239 of 2022^(olcl E.P. No.^{10 of 2012) pending}

¶31

¶32

¶33

on thc llle of learnecl Senior Civil .Iudge, Kukatpalll', Mt rlchal Malkajgiri District

¶34

At this juncture, both the parties agreed that thcv r,, ill co-operate in disposal of the claim petiticn in E.A. No. 5 of 2022 lokl E.A. No. 84 of 2O18) in E.P. No. 239 of 2O22 (old E.P. No. 10 of 2Ol2) pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at the ea rliest.

¶35

With the albrementioned obscrvation, thc Civil llcvision Pctition is disposed of directing the learned Scnior Civil Judge, Kukatpall_v, Meclch.rl Malkajgiri District, to dispose of the claim petition in Fl.A. No. 5 of 2O22 (old Il.A. No. 84 ol 2018) in E.P. No. 239 of 2022 (old tr.P. No. lO ol 20 12), u.ithin eight (08) months from the date of receipr of a cop1. of this order. There shall br: no order as to costs.

¶36

Miscellane<>us Pctitions, if anr. pending, shall st:rnd c'losed

¶37

SD/. L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

G-

SECTION OFFICER

To, 1 The Serrior Civil_.lqqg_er Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District 2. One CC to SRt SURESH SH|V SAGAR, Advocate [dnUC1 3 One CC to SRt PALANATI LAKSHMAN, Advocate iOeUCl 4 Two CD Copies

\ 'll 'S \

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711012025

ORDER

CRP.No.3326 of 2024

thI S14
(
i llorlp5 I
r- rr.i TC I rr t1l

¶49

DISPOSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION

¶50

N. Lalitha Patel (Died) v. Srikanth Patel Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N. Lalitha Patel (Died) v. Srikanth Patel Goud

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gali Doddanna Vs Gali Harshith

Doolam alias Thallapally Sharanya Vs Doolam Vamshidhar Goud

M/s Akshara Constructions Vs K. Buchaiah

Sri. Swathi Temburni Vs Arvind Tembumi

Bandlamudi Chandana @ Kodati Chandana Vs Bandlannudi Naga Babu

Syed Waseem Ahmed Vs Feroz Ahmed Siddiqui