Telangana High Court
Smt. Sakina Bee Died vs Venkata Swamy on 7 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.178 OF 2025
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioners-appellants
aggrieved by the docket order, dated 19.11.2024, in
I.A.No.281 of 2024 in I.A.No.84 of 2024 in A.S.No.08 of 2024
passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba
Gadwal.
2. Heard Mr.Palle Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.Yadu Krishna Sainath,
learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the
record.
3. The petitioners and the respondents herein filed
O.S.Nos.18 and 19 of 2022 respectively on the file of learned
Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, for recovery of possession
of suit schedule properties. The learned Senior Civil Judge,
Nagarkurnool, vide common Judgment, dated 12.01.2024,
dismissed the suit filed by the petitioners herein i.e.,
O.S.No.18 of 2022 and decreed the suit with costs i.e.,
O.S.No.19 of 2022 filed by the respondents herein declaring
NNR,J
2 crp_178_2025
that they are owners of the suit schedule properties and
directing petitioner Nos.2 to 12 herein to vacate the suit
schedule properties and deliver vacant possession of the same
to the respondents within a period of three (3) months, failing
which the respondents are at liberty to proceed with further
in accordance with law.
4. Aggrieved by decreeing the suit in O.S.No.19 of
2022, the petitioners filed appeal in A.S.No.8 of 2024 and
aggrieved by dismissing the suit in O.S.No.18 of 2022, the
petitioners filed appeal in A.S.No.7 of 2024 before the learned
Principal District Judge at Jogulamba Gadwal and both the
appeals are pending. Pending adjudication of said appeals,
the petitioners-appellants filed I.A.No.84 of the 2024 in appeal
A.S.No.8 of 2024, seeking stay of execution of judgment and
decree, dated 12.01.2024 in O.S.No.19 of 2022 passed by
learned Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, till disposal of the
said appeal. The learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba
Gadwal, vide its order 19.04.2024 granted interim stay of
execution of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.19 of
2022 till 03.06.2024 with a condition that the petitioners
shall give an undertaking for early disposal of the appeal.
NNR,J
3 crp_178_2025
Thereafter the stay was extended from time to time and it was
extended till 06.08.2024. Subsequently, the petitioners filed
I.A.No.281 of 2024 for extension of interim stay granted in
I.A.No.84 of 2024. But, the learned Principal District Judge
passed docket order dated 19.11.2024 simply adjourned the
matter without extending the interim order and directed the
office to call for the application along with the appeal.
Aggrieved by the said docket order, the present civil revision
case has been filed by the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-
appellants vehemently contended that the petitioners herein
have made an application in I.A.No.281 of 2024 for extension
of interim orders. But, the learned Principal District Judge,
Jogulamba Gadwal, without passing any orders on the said
application, has adjourned the said application though
initially on 19.04.2024, the learned Judge has granted
interim order, after hearing both the counsel and after
considering the objections and the Memo. He further
submitted that on the consent given by learned counsel for
respondents by way of memo that the respondents have no
objection for granting stay subject to condition that the
NNR,J
4 crp_178_2025
petitioners-appellants therein shall get ready with the
appeals, the learned Judge has granted limited stay to the
petitioners which was being extended from time to time till
06.08.2024. He further submitted that the present
application in I.A.No.281 of 2024 was filed seeking extension
of interim orders. But, the learned Judge did not choose to
pass any orders on the said application. Learned counsel for
the respondents has opposed the very revision petition on the
ground that the petitioners are dragging the matter since a
decade. But, during pendency of the suits the petitioners are
dragging the proceedings on one pretext or other by filing the
applications before the trial Court. It is further contended by
the learned counsel for the petitioners that there are series of
orders were passed in the applications, against which C.R.Ps
were preferred before this Court and in some instances
against some orders of this Court, the matters were carried to
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondents contended that the petitioners are more
concerned about obtaining of stay, but did not choose to
proceed with the appeal. Learned counsel also brought to the
NNR,J
5 crp_178_2025
notice of this Court about the order passed by this Court in
Tr.C.M.P.Nos.274 and 292 of 2024, dated 30.09.2024 wherein
this Court directed the learned Principal District Judge to
dispose of the both the appeals within three (3) months from
the date of the said order. He further contended that in spite
of directions of this Court, the petitioners are not cooperating
for disposal of the appeals. Due to conduct of the petitioners,
even though interim stay was granted by the trial Court with
the consent of the respondents, the petitioners are not
cooperating for disposal of the appeals. In spite of leverage
expressed by learned counsel for the respondents in the trial
Court, the petitioners did not get ready with the appeals and
stick on to the extent interim orders passed by the learned
Principal District Judge.
7. Having regard to the submissions made by learned
counsel on either side, the learned Principal District Judge,
Jogulamba Gadwal ought to have passed some orders on the
extension application without keep pending the same as the
said application is filed only for extension of Interim orders for
a further period. Mere keeping the applications pending
NNR,J
6 crp_178_2025
would lead to such situation where the petitioners have to
approach this Court seeking to pass orders.
8. Therefore, this Court, without going into the
merits of the case as both counsel have requested this Court
to issue a direction to the learned Principal District Judge,
Jogulamba Gadwal, to dispose of the appeal within the time
bound. Taking into consideration the submissions made by
both the counsel and as the petitioners are ready and willing
to cooperate for disposal of the appeal i.e., A.S.No.08 of 2024
this Court deems it appropriate to direct both the parties,
especially, the petitioners to conclude the arguments which
are already made by them in-part before the learned Principal
District Judge on or before 28.03.2025 and if the petitioners
fails to submit their arguments on or before 28.03.2025,
learned Principal District Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal shall
treat that the petitioners have no further arguments and
thereafter, the learned Principal District Judge shall proceed
with for further hearing of the respondents. Till disposal of
appeal in A.S.No.08 of 2024, interim stay granted by the trial
Court in the said appeal shall continue.
NNR,J
7 crp_178_2025
9. With the above observations, the Civil Revision
Petitions is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_________________________________________
JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
Date: 07.03.2025
Note:
Issue C.C.by Monday.
(B/o)
YVL
