Disposed

Edumulla Sammaiah v. Kalva Ragotham Reddy

Telangana HC16 Sept 2025CRP/3329/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendants in a suit challenged the trial court's dismissal of their applications to receive documents, filed without detailed reasons. The High Court, without entering the merits, permitted them to file fresh applications with valid reasons and directed the trial court to consider them on merits expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners permitted to file a fresh application before the trial Court with cogent reasons; trial Court to decide it on merits expeditiously. No costs.

Edumulla Sammaiah Vs Kalva Ragotham Reddy — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

: i I I I I I l I '

¶2

132171

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY oF SEPTET\TBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 3306 3361 and 3329OF2025

¶8

. CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3306 of 2 025

¶9

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the order passed in 1.A.No.324 of 2025 in OS.No.336 ot 2025 dated: 18-08-2025 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil J udge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Huzurabad.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Salakala Veeralaxmi, Wo Ra.ianarsu, Aged about 60 years, R/o Shalapally H/o. Chelpur Village of Huzurabad Mandal, Karimangar District.

¶12

...Petitioners/Petitioners/Defenda nt-1.

¶13

AND

¶14

Kalva Ragotham Reddy,, S/o Sambashiva Reddy, Occ. Agriculture,

¶15

Kalva Hymavathi,, Wo Sambashiva Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Agriculture.

¶16

Soth^{are R/o Shalapally,H/o ChelpurVillage of Huzurabad Mandal,} Karimnagar District.

¶17

...RespondenURespondenUPlaintiff

¶18

Edumulla Sammaiah,, S/o Rajaiah, Occ. Agriculture, aged about 60 years, R/o lndiranagar Village of Huzurabad Mandal, Karimangar District.

¶19

4 Qogam Rajitha,, Wo Yadagiri, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Household, R/o Sirisedu Village of Ellandakunta Mandal, Kariniangar District.

¶20

(Respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary Parties)

¶21

...RespondenUDefendants 2 and 3

¶22

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶23

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

¶24

stay of all further proceedings in OS.336/2025 on the file o the Principal Senior Civil-Judge-Cum- Assistant Sessions Judge at HuzurabarJ pending disposal of the main revision and pass

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S Smt.S.A.V.RATNAM

¶26

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared

¶27

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3361 ol 2025

¶28

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of ln,i a, against the order passed in 1.A.No.325 of 2025 in OS.No.336 of 202,j dated: 18-08-2025 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge-cum-Ass r tant Sessions Judge at Huzurabad.

¶29

Between:

¶30

$qta$tq^{Veeralaxmi, Wo Rajanarsu,Aged about 60 r ears, R/o Shalapally,} H/o.Chelpur Village of Huzurabad Mandal, Karimangar I istrict.

¶31

...Petitioners/Pe li ioners/Defendant-1.

¶32

AND

¶33

Kalva Ragotham Reddy, S/o Sambashiva Reddy, Occ. I griculture.

¶34

Kalua Hymavathi, W/o Sambashiva Reddy, Aged aboul 0 years, Occ. Agriculture

¶35

Both are R/o Shalapally, H/o Chelpur Village of Huzura I rd [\rlandal. Karimnagar District.

¶36

...Respondenl/ les po nd en UP la i n tiff

¶37

Edumulla Sammaiah, S/o Rajaiah, Occ. Agriculture, Ag: i about 60 years, R/o lndiranagar Village of Huzurabad Mandal, karimangar-t) strict.

¶38

4 Qogam Rajitha, W/o Yadagiri, Aged about 38 years, Oc: Household, R/o Sirisedu Village of Ellandakunta tVlandal, Karirirangar D s rict.

¶39

(Respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary Parties)

¶40

... Res pondenUDt fendants 2 and 3

¶41

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S Smt. S. A. V. RATNAM

¶42

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared

/ /,/

,:/

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3329 ot 2025

¶47

Petition under Article 227 of lhe Constitution of lndia, against the order passed in 1.A.No.326 ot 2025 in OS.No.336 of 2025 dated: 18-08-2025 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil^{Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge} at Huzurabad.

¶48

Between:

¶49

Edumulla Sammaiah, S/o Rajaiah, Occ. Agriculture, aged about 60 years, R/o lndiranagar Village of Huzurabad Mandal, Karimangar District.

¶50

... Petitioners/Petitioners/Defendant-1.

¶51

AND

¶52

Kalva Ragotham Reddy, Sio Sambashiva Reddy, Occ. Agriculture,

¶53

Kalva Hymavathi, Wo Sambashiva Reddy, Aged about 70^years, Occ. Agriculture.

¶54

Both are R/o Shalapally, H/o Chelpur Village of Huzurabad Mandal, Karimnagar District

¶55

...Res pondenURespondenUPlaintiff

¶56

Salakala Veeralaxmi, Wo Rajanarsu, Aged about 60^years, Fi/o Shalapally H/o.Chelpur Village of Huzurabad Mandal, Karimangar District.

¶57

Bogam Rajitha, Wo Yadagiri, Aged about 38^years, Occ. Household,^Rl/o Sirisedu Village of Ellandakunta Mandal, Karimangar District.

¶58

(Respondents 3 and 4 are not necessary Parties)

¶59

... RespondenUDefendants 2 and 3

¶60

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/S Smt.S.A.V.RATNAM

¶61

Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared

¶62

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶63

¶64

THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^{N. T]. KARAMJI} CIVIL REVISION PETI^{TION Nos.3306. 3367 at} l^{13329 of2025}

¶65

COMMON ORDER:

¶66

I{aving regard to the fact that^{the revision} I^{ctirioners \'ho} are delcndants 1n the suit has fi1ccl perrtions c,^rcccilethe docr-rments and contestj.ng the^{impugncdordct s passcclbv the} learncd trial Coutt, these tevisions^{are considercrl, hc:rrd togcthet} ancl are being disposed of by this^commonorder

¶67

Thesc Civil Revision Petirions^{aretrledr hallcnurtrgthc} propriefi, o[ the order^{dated 18.08.2025in I.,.i\r r.]24, i25 and} 326 of 2025 respectively in O.S.No.336^{o[ 2[ll]'i passcd bv the} lcarncd Senior Civil Judge-cr-rm-r\ssistant^{St ssions} Judge, H rLzurabad.

¶68

pertirioners/defendants had filed an^{interlocttttn'apphcation} lrcforc the tr-ial Court during the pcndenci;^{of rl t: srLit,sccking} Icale of the Court to receir.e ccrtain documcnts^{t -:ntioncdirr the} ?

¶69

¶70

petition in support of thcir case. The trial Court, after considering

¶71

the materials on record, passcd the lnpugned order dismissing the

¶72

application. Aggrieved therebv, the prcscnt rer.ision petition has been filed.

¶73

4.1,. Learned counscl for the revision pctitionels submits that the documents sought to bc produced are esscntial to sr-rbstantiate the pleadings of thc petitioners and arc necessatl' for an effective adjudication of the issues in contror-crsv bcnveen thc parties. It is further contended that the trial^(-ourt ousht to have permitted the reception of the documcnts to ensurc that thc matter could be decided on its true mcrits. Horvever, counscl laLr-h, concedes that the application filcd before rhe tt-ial Cor,rrt s,as bercft of detailed reasons explaining the necessin o[ producing the documents at that stage and the trial Courr, f<rcusins on thts tcchnical deficiency,

¶74

dismissed the application

¶75

4.2. Counsel thcreforc, prar.s that onc more opportunity be

¶76

extended to the peritioners to approach thc trial Court by filing an t

¶77

\ I

¶78

¶79

appropriate appLlcation^{afresh supportedb1' r'alitl reasons.It is} Furrher requested that thc trial Court^{may bc drect rd to consider} such an application, it Eled, on^{its merits, in accorcl,r rce u'ith larv}

¶80

H aving rcgard to the submissions^advancc -'^{and rvlthout}

¶81

entcring into the merirs of the case, this^{Courtonsiclcrsthat,} sirrcc tl're suit is still at the trial^{stage before} th: prin-raw tacr '.Ir-t frnding forum, it rvould be^just and^{appropria tc ro crtend} opporrtrnitr- to thc petitioners to file a^{fresh applic,ritrn beiorctl.rc} rrial^(.outt, dr-rly sctting out the reasons for^{seeki :} 1^{reccption oi} rhc clocunrents. Granting such an opportunitt' at^{tl is sragcu.-oulcl} n()t pre^judicc the rights of the rcsPondents^{ant Ir.otilcl,on the} c()lrrrar', sen'e thc ends of^justice by^{enabling rht rrial (lourt rrr} acljuclicarc the dispute comprehensively on^{its me} n^I

¶82

\ccorclingh,, the petitioners are permi ttecl C) filc a ti'esh pcririon Lrefore the trial Court, setting^forth c( ) I tnt 1:c2s()1rs¹¹¹ suPl)()rt o[ thc rclief sought. Upon such filing, thc^{t ial Court shall}

¶83

¶84

¶85

consider the applicauon on its own merits, in accordance with law,

¶86

and pass appropriate orders expediriousiy.

¶87

7 With this direction, this civil rerrision peridons are disposed

¶88

of. Thcre shall be no ordcr as ro cosrs

¶89

I{iscellaneous Petitions, pendirrg if anr', sl.rall srand closed

¶90

SD/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

,rt - lv

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessrons Judge at Huzurabad

¶96

One CC to Smt.S.A.V.Ratnam, Advocate IOPUC] 3. Two CD Copies

o- NVBipsl

HIGH COURT

DATED:1610912025

COMMON ORDER

I
.ffi;i' i<br>(]
O !
a
i 6 Jil 2[26
6)
* .'/',
i:.:l :, :

¶102

CRP.Nos.3306, 3361 and 3329 of 2025

¶103

DISPOSING THE ALL CIVIL REVISION I,ETITIONS

¶104

(-
a&

Edumulla Sammaiah v. Kalva Ragotham Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Edumulla Sammaiah v. Kalva Ragotham Reddy

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

Thallapalli Divya Vs The State of Telangana, Home Department, rep. by its

Tirmaiashetti Venkateswarlu Vs The State of Telangana

J.Anjamma Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. N.Anitha, Vs State of Telangana

R Sathyanarayana and Anothers Vs Prl.Secretary ( Home) and 6 Others

B Rajeshwar Vs the State of Ts., Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and 3 Others