Smt.Arijala Anitha Vs Mr.Yenugu Pulla Reddy

¶1

[³³⁰⁴ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION NO:129 7 0F 2025

¶7

Petition under Section 115 of civir procedure code against the order dated 17 03'2025^passed in E A No.6 0r zozq in-E.p.rv-o rz of 2023 in o.S. No.23 0f 2021 (old o s. No.249 of 2015) on the fire oi ft," corrt of Junior civrr Judge court, Choutuppal

¶8

Between:

¶9

Smt.Arrjala Anitha, Wo yadagiri reddy, Age 56 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o H No t1-9 55 (new), Laxmi frfJgar Cotony, ftLJno.r, Kothapet X Road, Near Patidar Bhavan Road No.1 , Sar6ornagar frl"nJrfl nrng, Reddy District

¶10

AND

¶11

...petitioner /plaintiff/D.H.R

¶12

'1. Mr.Yenugu pulla Reddy. .S/o Venkat reddy, Age B0 years, Occ. Agriculture R/o Toopranpet Viilage. choutuppat lvtanoai,'ya-dadri enrranagiri oisiiiJi''

¶13

1. Mr.Yenugu Gopal Reddy,.S/o Venkat reddy, Age 75 years, Occ. Agricia,re, R/o TonprAnpet Viilage, Choutuppat VfanJai Vaoaari eirrrnrgiri Di.ii;i-.

¶14

...Respondents /Defendants/J.D.Rs.

¶15

l.A. NO: 1OF 2025

¶16

Petition under Section 151 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the.petition, t" riigh c"r.t may be preased to suspend the E A No 6 of 2024 in E p No.17 or zoze inb'.s=."rio.23 of 2021 dated 17.03.202s on the file of the Honourable Junior Civil Judge^{-ourt,'Ctroutuppat.}

¶17

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao

¶18

Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Chalakani Venkat yadav

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATEOF TEI ANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶21

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU^{RAJI SHWARRAO}

¶22

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.L297 0t²⁰²⁵

DATE: O3.O 2.2026

Between:

Smt.Arijala Anitha

... Petitioner

AND

Sri Yenugu Pulla Reddy and others.

¶29

,, Respondents

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved ly the order dated 17.03.2025^passed in E.A.No.06.2O24 in^:.P.No.17of 2023 in O.S.No.23 of 2021 on the file of the^learn: i lunior^Civil ludge at Choutuppal.

¶32

Learned counsel for the^petitioner submits tf at E.A.No.06 of 2024 in E.P. had been filed by the respondents^ri r re-opening the E.P., from the stage of orders and the trial Icurt allowed the said E.A., and E.P. was reopened, which is im:Jgned in the present CRP.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents have not explained the reasons for not cross_ examining the petitioner and they have reported no evidence on their side through their advocate. The stand of the respondents is that, the counsel on their behalf without their consent, had reported no instructions. He further submitted that the trial Court ought to have seen that there were no bona fides to respondents in providing facility to reopen the E.p.

¶34

On the other hand. the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the trial court has righUy allowed the E.A.No.06 of 2024 and no interference is required by this Court.

¶35

A perusal of the record shows that O.S.No.23 of 2021 (old O.S.No.249 of 2015) on the fite of the learned lunior Civil Judge Court at Choutuppal, was filed for perpetual injunction in respect oF suit schedule property consisting of Ac.2.00 gts., in Sy.No.75lUU situated at Malkapur Village, Choutuppal Mandal, Yadadri Bhuvanagiri District and the same was decreed. Since the rights of the parties are involved over the immovable property, the trial Court has righUy allowed the E.A.No.06 of 2024. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the E.p. proceedings within a period of three (03) months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents are directed to

¶36

./

¶37

adduce their evidence, if any, or cross-examine t re petitioner within the above said period

¶38