S. Narsimha Reddy v. S. Suman Reddy,
Court: High Court for State of Telangana
Bench: MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court for State of Telangana judgment dated 2026-01-27. S. Narsimha Reddy v. S. Suman Reddy,. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA // AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY rWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 166 OF 2026 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, Aggrieved by the order d1. 25. 11. 2025 and consequential orders d1. 27. 11. 2025, 28. 11. 2025 and 02. 12. 2025, ('lmpugned Orders') in l. A No. 437 of 2020 in OS No. 861 of 2OO7 on the file of the 1't Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief N/etropolitan [/agistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar ('Trial Court') the present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the same. Between: 1. S. Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Retd. Employee, R/o. Block No. ll, Telecom Residents Welfare Associates, Tele-Xge Campus, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2. S. N/ladhava Reddy, S/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Aged about 68 years, Occ. Retd. Employee, R/o. H.
No . 14-11-657, Jinsi Chowrahi, Hyderabad. 3. S. lndra Reddy,, S/o. Late Venkat Reddy, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Business, R/o. IVICH (141) Kanda Swamy Lane, Gujarat Galli, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad-95. ... Petitioners/Respondent Nos. 1-3 AND 1. S. Suman Reddy, S/o. S. Madhava Reddy, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, R/o. H. No 2-38, Kuntloor Village, Hayathnagar fMandal, Ranga Reddy District. ... Respondent -1 /Petitioner 2. S. Susheelamma, (Died), (Died) ... Respondent -2lRespondent-4 3. A. Prabhakar Reddy, S/o. A. Yadagiri Reddy, Aged about 46 years, Occ. Sarpanch, R/o. Hat No. 302, lll Floor, Ushodaya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. Sai Towers,Dilsukhnagar,Hyderabad. ... Respondent-3/Respondent-S 4. Chandrakala, Wo. Amrit Singh, Aged about 45 years, Occ, Household, R/o. H. No. 14-11-645, Kamatipura, Chowraha Jinai, Hyderabad, A. P. ... Respondent No. 4/Respondent No. 6 5. Omprakash Upadhyay, S/o. Late Madanlal Upadhyay, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H. N o.
14-5-81, Bedaruvadi, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad - 50001 2. ... Respondent No. S/Respondent No. 7 6. Leela Bai Upadhyay,, Wo. Omprakash Upadhyay, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H. No. 14-5-81, Bedaruradi, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad 500012. ... Respondent No. 6/Respondent No. 8 (Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 are not necessary parties) No. 6 i. e Smt. S. Susheelamma has died and as not taken ste S hence CAUSE not the same and dea CC I lA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further proceedings in lA No. 437 of 2020 in OS No. B61 of 2017 on the file of the'i't Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum- Chief [Vletropolitan N/agistrate-cunr-Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar pending disposal of the main CRP Counsel for the Petitioners: Mr.
M PHANINDRA PAVAN KASHYAP, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER HIGH COURT FOR THE STA TE OF TELANGANA AT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA CRP. NO. 166 0F 2026 DATE:27. OL. 2O26 Between: S. Narsimha Reddy, S/o. Late Venkat Reddy and two others. Petitiorrers And S. Suman Reddy, Si o. S. Madhava Reddy and five others. Responclents Mr. M Phanincira Pavan Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the lletitiorrcrs' ORDER: 1. The Civil Revision Petition arises out of a se ries of docket orders dated 25 . I I . 2025, 27 . | | . 2025, 28. I I . 2025 and 02 . 12. 2025. passed in I'A. No. 437 of 2. The impugned docket orders were 2O2O in O. S. No. 861 of 2OO7 filed by the respondent No. 1/plaintiff for setting aside the order dated 19. 01. 2015 and restoring the Suit to its original file. 3. The petitioners before this Court are the defendant Nos' 1 to 3 in the suit filed for partition and separate possession. The Suit was filed in 2OO7. \ 4.
Thr: first docket order dated 25. 1L. 2O25 states that the respondert No 2 (petitior-rer No. 2 in the CRP) was present; however, the respondt. :nt No. i/plairrtiff u,as absent and no representation r,vas mad,l on bchalf of thc plaintifl despite several adjournments. The dock,tt ordcr further records that the respondent No. 1/plaintiff is required to take steps in respcct of the death of the respondent No. 2/deftndernt No. 4. 5. Thc Court is informed that the defendant No. 4 died in 2018 and that the plaintiff tilcd a Memo on 16. 12. 2024 informing the Court of :;uch cleath. 'fhe Trial Court proceeded to list the matter on 27. 11 2025 to allou' the respondent No. 1/plaintiff one final opportunity for appearance. 'l'l-re 6. next docket order dated 27. 1I. 2025 narrates exactly the same rea,sons as given by the Trial Court on 25. 11. 2025, that although t. he plaintiff remained absent, no representation was made on behalf of the plaintiff.
The Trial court proceeded to give another 'final opportunit. y'to the plaintiff and listed the matter on 28. 11. 2025. The reasorls for adjournment are replicated in the docket orcler dated 28. rr. 2025. In essence, the plaintiff was given two further'final opportunities'. 7. This court is unable to comprehend the basis for the extreme lefr. ence shown by the 'l'rial court to the plaintiff when the plaintiff chose to rernain absent or-r four consecutive occasions and als<; failed to takc stcps in respect of the death of the defendant No. 4 despite filing a IVIcmo on 16. 12. 2024 in that regard. B. There is no cxitl:rn;lricln given b_\, tltc Triat Court to cxplain Lhc repeated inclr-rlgcncc sho'*rn to the plaintiff, especially when thcr plaintiff chosc Lrl rernrrin urlrepresenti:d on all four occasions. 'll-rr: Court is inliri"rnecl tlial the plain[iff '*,as also absent on 16. L2. 2025. Thc impugncci clockct orclers hence warrant interference and shoulcl bc set asidr:. 9.
The Trizil Cor-rrt shor-rld have disrnissed I. A. No. 43T ol 2O'2O i-r O. S. No. 86 1 oi''2OO7 ri,ithout granting such extensions and extrcnrc indulgence to tht''ptain tiff. 10. cRP No. 166. > ol 2026, along rvith all connectecl applications, is accorclingly allo',vc':d anri clisposed of b. r, setting aside the impugned docket orders passec[ in I. A. No. 437 o{ 2O2O dated 25. 11 . 2025. '27 . 1. 1. '2025,28. t I "'2021) iind 02. 12. 2025. Sd/- K. MAD ASSISTANT RE R //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The 1'' Additional Senior Civil Judge-cum-Chief [Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Assistant Sessions J udge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar 2. One CC to Mr. M PHANINDRA PAVAN KASHYAP, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies c) , HIGH COURT DATED: it710112026 r- IHE S Cr (*) ORDER ti rr) CRP. No. 166 of 2026 * * Accordin,gly, this Civil Revision Petition is Disposed & Allowed.
Source: High Court for State of Telangana. Archive: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.