Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sardar Bee Vs Mohammed Hussain — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

Home
Telangana HC
2026
Sardar Bee Vs Mohammed HussainSardar Bee v. Mohammed Hussain

Allowed¶46

Sardar Bee v. Mohammed Hussain

Telangana HC9 Feb 2026CRP/393/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court; Civil Revision Petition No.393 of 2022; Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy; decided 09.02.2026; set aside of order dated 13.12.2018 in O.S.No.281 of 2014; dismissal of I.A.No.378 of 2019 (dated 27.08.2019) by III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, undone; plaintiff (respondent No.6, Mohammed Kareem) raised no objection, allowed on consent; petitioners are defendant Nos. 6 to 10 (Sardar Bee, Abdyl Raheem, Parveen, Zubeda, Asma); counsel M.V. Raj Kumar Gabriel (petitioners) and P. Ram Chander (respondent No.6); outcome: CRP allowed, no costs; statutes referenced: Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Section 151 CPC; no precedent cases engaged.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; I.A.No.378 of 2019 in O.S.No.281 of 2014 allowed and the order dated 13.12.2018 set aside; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, directed to stand closed.

Why is it important?

On recording the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.6/plaintiff that he had no objection to allowing the application, the Court allowed this Civil Revision Petition. ¶46

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Civil Revision Petition allowed; I.A.No.378 of 2019 in O.S.No.281 of 2014 allowed and the order dated 13.12.2018 set aside; no costs; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, directed to stand closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Civil Revision Petition, aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.378 of 2019 (the application by defendant Nos. 6 to 10 to set aside the order dated 13.12.2018 in O.S.No.281 of 2014), should be allowed.

Court's answer

On recording the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.6/plaintiff that he had no objection to allowing the application, the Court allowed this Civil Revision Petition.

Ratio / Principle

Consequently, I.A.No.378 of 2019 in O.S.No.281 of 2014 is allowed, setting aside the order dated 13.12.2018, with no costs imposed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition No.393 of 2022, High Court for the State of Telangana (single bench, Justice Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy, decided 09.02.2026), filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by defendant Nos. 6 to 10 (Sardar Bee and others) aggrieved by the order dated 27.08.2019 of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, dismissing their I.A.No.378 of 2019 in O.S.No.281 of 2014, which had sought to set aside the order dated 13.12.2018. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for respondent No.6/plaintiff submitted that he had no objection to allowing the application to set aside the order dated 13.12.2018. Recording that submission, the Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition, consequently allowed I.A.No.378 of 2019 thereby setting aside the order dated 13.12.2018, ordered no costs, and held that miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. A companion I.A.No.1 of 2022 under Section 151 CPC had sought stay of further proceedings in O.S.No.281 of 2014 pending disposal of the revision.

A

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR fHE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

MONDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 393 0F 2022

Petition under Articre 227 of-the constitution of rndia aggrieved by the order dated 27-08-2019 in t.A.No.378/2019 in o.S.No.2atnnli oi"ne riie oftne court oiln- rrr Senior Civil Judg!, Court, City-Civil Court at SeiunOeraOaO.lpraye, L;;;J;';, percourt order Dated:19.01.2026 vide rA.No.i/20i6ltas peiioiirero-aieJl"--- - 21.01.20261A No.378/19 is corrected instead of AEblZOf Sy

Between:

Sardar Bee, Wo. Late peer Mohammed, Age. Major, Occ. Household, 2. Abdyl Raheem, S/o. Late peer Mohammed Aged about 2g years, Occ Business,

Parveen, Wo. Md. Saleem Haji, Aged about 34 years, Occ.

Zubeda, D/o. Late Peer Mohammed, Aged about 30 years, Occ.

Asma, D/o. Late Peer Mohammed, Aged about 22 years, Occ.

AND

Defendant No.6 to 10 are R/o. H. No.g7, picket, Secunderabad ...PETITIONERS/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT N05.6 TO 1O

Mohammed Hussain, S/o late peer Mohammed, Aged about 2g years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No.3/5, Ramdas Garden, weii'Uirreapaffv, SL6r.Oiir"o"U

Mohammed Ghouse, Dlo, !g!g peer Mohammed, Aged about 56 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. No. 3-6-1 1 8/2, Rajatingam eaioLnsi, W;aiM;EA;;it, - Secunderabad

Mohammed Shareef. S/o. Late peer Mohammed, Aged about 30 years, Occ Business,

Naseen, Wo. Md. Jahagir, Aged 5g years, Occ Housewife,

Na_sreen, Wo. Md. Ghouse Aged 40 years, Occ Housewife, Defendant No.3 to 5 are R/o. H. No.25, Krishninagai'CJiriv, Fi"r."t, Secunderabad ...RESpONDENTS /RESpONDENTS/DEFENDANT NO. 1to S

Mohammed Kareem. S/o.^L_ate peer Mohammed, Aged about 45 years, Occ H. r.ro s_o_z0]]1 i, R"r" r,i#m' E;iiens, west Ma riedpaily,

3::[,?.];;:t

.,.RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, ine uigtr court may be pleased to STAY all further proceedings in oS No.2g1l2014 on the file oi lll denior civil Judge, CCC, Secunderabad pending disposal of the above Revision

Counsel for thr: Petitioner: SRI M V RAJ KUMAR GABRIEL

Counsel forther Respondent No.6: SRI P.RAM CHANDER

The Court madr: the following: ORDER

t

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STAT E OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.393 ot 2022

DATE:09.02.2026

Between:

Sardar Bee & Others

Petitioners

AND

Mohammed Hussain & Others

...Respondents

ORDER

This civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 27.o8.2o19 in I.A.No.378 of 2o19 in o.s.No.281 of 2ot4 passed by the III Senior Civit Judge, City Civil Cour.t, Secunderabad, whereby the petition liled by the petitioners/defendant Nos.6 to 10 seeking to set aside the order dated L3.t2.2O18, was dismissed.

(I

Heard sri M.V.Raj Kumar Gabriel, learned counsel for the petitioners and sri P.Ram chander, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

when the matter is taken up for consideration, rearned counsel for respondent No.6/plaintiff submits that he has no objection for allowing the application to set aside the order dated 13.12.2018.

2

\

Recording the said submission, this Civit Revision petition is allo'ved. Consequently, I.A.No.37g of 2OL9 in O.S.No.2B 1 of 2014 is allowed setting aside the order dated l3.l2.2)lg. No costs.

fu[iscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand

closed.

SD/ L.VIJAYA LAXMI s NT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

s TION OFFICER

To,

The lll Serrior Civil Judge, Court, City Civil Court at Secunderabad

One CC tc, SRt tM V RAJ KUMAR GABRTEL Advocate tOpUCI

One CC to SRt P.RAM CHANDER Advocate tOpUCI

Two CD {}opies

VM/PSL

) &*

HIGH COURT' DATED: Ogt)ltt2I26

ORDER CRP.No.393 of 2022

Tf'E
:'_)
;-.
2 5 ri:8 202[

ALLOWING^{THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION}

@-{,Y^*

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the Civil Revision Petition, aggrieved by the dismissal of I.A.No.378 of 2019 (the application by defendant Nos. 6 to 10 to set aside the order dated 13.12.2018 in O.S.No.281 of 2014), should be allowed.¶40
The court held
On recording the submission of learned counsel for respondent No.6/plaintiff that he had no objection to allowing the application, the Court allowed this Civil Revision Petition.ratio¶46

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 2 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227¶7
Code of Civil Procedure151¶24

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Dismissal of I.A.No.378 of 2019 (the application by defendant Nos. 6 to 10 to set aside the order dated 13.12.2018) in O.S.No.281 of 2014.¶40
III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad · 27.08.2019
Prior proceeding
Application I.A.No.378 of 2019 filed in O.S.No.281 of 2014 by defendant Nos. 6 to 10 seeking to set aside the order dated 13.12.2018.¶40
Prior proceeding
The order dated 13.12.2018 in O.S.No.281 of 2014 which defendant Nos. 6 to 10 sought to set aside.¶46
Prior proceeding
Stay application I.A.No.1 of 2022 under Section 151 CPC filed in the High Court seeking stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.281 of 2014 pending disposal of the revision petition.¶24

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Sardar Bee¶9
M.V. Raj Kumar Gabriel
petitioner
Abdyl Raheem¶9
M.V. Raj Kumar Gabriel
petitioner
Parveen¶10
M.V. Raj Kumar Gabriel
petitioner
Zubeda¶11
M.V. Raj Kumar Gabriel
petitioner
Asma¶12
M.V. Raj Kumar Gabriel
respondent
Mohammed Hussain¶15
respondent
Mohammed Ghouse¶16
respondent
Mohammed Shareef¶17
respondent
Naseen¶18
respondent
Na_sreen¶19
respondent
Mohammed Kareem¶20
P. Ram Chander

Coram

AI extract

Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddyauthor¶30

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Telangana HC
Decided on: 9 Feb 2026 · February
Registered: 25 Feb 2022
Case no.: CRP/393/2022
CNR: HBHC010137862022
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy
Disposal: DISPOSED OF NO COSTS
Case type: Civil Revision Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy

Durga Rao Vs Prashanth Lahoti
6 Feb 2026
M. Ashok Vs M/s. Telangana Rajaka Abhivruddi Samstha
6 Feb 2026
Agina Chandra Mouli and 5 others Vs Rajuri Rajalingam (died) and 2 others
6 Feb 2026
Vankayalapati Gopala Rao Vs Athaluri Venkata Narayana
9 Feb 2026
V.S. Rao Munjuluri Vs P. Sukhender Reddy
9 Feb 2026
Yedapally,Edapally Soluchana Vs M/s. Vishwapriya Developers
9 Feb 2026

Cite this judgement

Sardar Bee v. Mohammed Hussain, CRP/393/2022 (TEL), decided on 9 February 2026.

The High Court for the State of Telangana publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Constitution of IndiaArticle 227
Code of Civil Procedure151

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Dismissal of I.A.No.378 of 2019 (the application by defendant Nos. 6 to 10 to set aside the order dated 13.12.2018) in O.S.No.281 of 2014.III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad · 27.08.2019
Application I.A.No.378 of 2019 filed in O.S.No.281 of 2014 by defendant Nos. 6 to 10 seeking to set aside the order dated 13.12.2018.
The order dated 13.12.2018 in O.S.No.281 of 2014 which defendant Nos. 6 to 10 sought to set aside.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Vakiti Ramakrishna Reddy

Parties & counsel