CRP/805/2026 of Mahavir Golechha Vs Duggirala Leela Yugendhar Babu on 13 March 2026

1. Duggirala Leela Yugendhar Babu, S/o Late D. Sudhindra Babu, Aged about 57 l-ears, Occu: Business, Fl/o D. No. 17 - 2, Kanut, Penamalur Mandal, Krishna District

2. Duggirala Krishna Mohan,, S/o. Late D. Amarendra Babu, Rl/o D'No 17 - 2, Kanur, Penamalur Mandal, Krishna District . ..Respondents / Petitioner / Plaintiffs

3. Smt. Nirmala Golechha (Died as per LRs)

4. M/s lw League schools Private Limited, Under its certificate of incorporation With Corporate ldentity Number, U80101AP1986PTC006956 Rep by its Director Sri Mahavir Golechha, S/o. Laxmi Chand Golechha, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Business, Office at 104, Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

5. Mr. Laxmichand Golechha (Died per LRs)

6. Mr. Ashwin Golechha, S/o Laxmichand Golechha' Aged about 56 years' Occu: Business, R:/o Flat No. 1, Ground Floor, Windsor Apartments, Road No' 1 2, Baniara Hills, HYderabad

7. Mrs. Sangeetha Sethia, W/ o Prabath Sethia, D/o Laxmichand Golechha, Aged abo-ut 52 years, Occu: Business, R/o Plot No' 503, 111, Jyothi Slendor Aiartments, Srinagar Colony' Hyderabad (Respondents No 3 to 7 Not Necessary Parties in this Civil Revision Petition) ...Respondents / Respondents / Defendants

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circt nstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to take on record Case Abstract and Opinion vide Opinion No. CFSL (H\l '751 DOCI 71 I 241 BH-Bgl 2023 dated 12 03.2024, issued by the Central Forensic I cience Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Sciences, It/inistry of Home Affairs, Gove r rment of lndia.

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the cirr;r mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ray be pleased to suspend the Order dated 11 12.2025 in l.A. No. 735 of 2025 in O S. No. 328 of 2009, passed by the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medci rl Malkajgiri District at Medchal, pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petiti r r. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 805 OF 2026 Petition under Article 227 oI lhe Constitution of lndia ac< :'ieved by the Order dated 1111212025 passed in l.A.No.B16 of 2024 in OS No.328 r f 2009 on the file of the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri )istrict at Medchal. Between: Mahavir Golechha, S/o. Laxmi Chand Golechha, Aged : cout 70 years, Occ: Business, Ri/o. Plot No. 6, Kakateeya Hills, Guttala E r gumpet, Madhapur, Hyderabad - 500081 ...Petitioner / Responde ,rt / Defendant No.4 AND

1. Duggirala Leela Yugendhar Babu, S/o. Late D. Sudhinrl a Babu, Aged about 57 years, Occu: Business, Ri/o D. No. 17 - 2, Kanur, Penamalur Mandal, Krishna District

2. Duggirala Krishna Mohan, S/o. Late D. Amarendra Bat.r, Rl/o D.No. 17 - 2, Kanur, Penamalur [Vlandal, Krishna District ...Respondents / l'etitioner / Plaintiffs

3. Smt. Nirmala Golechha, (Died as per LRs)

4. M/s lW League Schools Private Limited, Under its certi cate of incorporation With Corporate ldentity Number, U80101AP1986PT,- )06956 Rep. by its Director Sri Mahavir Golechha, S/o. Laxmi Chand Gol:;hha, Aged about 70 years, Occ: Business, Office at 104, Deccan Tc ruers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

5. Mr. Laxmichand Golechha, (Died per LRs)

6. Mr. Ashwin Golechha, S/o Laxmichand Golechha, l\ ted about 56 years, Occu: Business, Rlio Flat No. 1, Ground Floor, Windsor, ,partments, Road No. 12, Banjaru Hills, Hyderabad

Mrs. Sangeetha Sethia, W/o Prabath Sethia, D/o Laxmichand Golechha, Aged about 52 years, Occu: Business, R/o Plot No. 5O3, 1'1 1, Jyothi Slendor Apartments, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. (Respondents No. 3 to 7 Not Necessary Parties in this Civil Revision Petition) Petition under section 151 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the order dated 11.12.2025 in l.A. No. 816 of 2024 in o.s. No. 328 of 2009, passed by the ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Medchal, pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition' ...Respondents / Respondents / Defendants

Petition under Section 151 of cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to take on record case Abstract and opinion vide opinion No. CFSL(H)/ 2751 DOCI 71l24lBH- 8gt2o23 dated 12.03.2024, issued by the central Forensic science Laboratory, Directorate of Forensic Sciences, Ministry of Home Affairs, as Additional Documents Government of lndia. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AVINASH DESAI' SENIOR COUNSEL REPRESENTING SRI M PRANAV Counsel for the ResPondents: ---- The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

IN TIIE HIGII (lotlR-l F'OR'rHE STATE OF TII LANGANA AT: HYDERABAD IION'lll.h SRl.ItlSTI('Fl K. LAKSHNII N CML REVISION PETITION Nos.737 AND tl(t_; oF 2026 DATE: 13-03-2026 Between Mr. Mahavir ( iolcchha Pctitioner' )el'cndantNo.4 Vs Mr. [)uggirala [.eclu YLrecntllrar I]abu & Othcrs . Responrl nts - Plaintifl-& ll:fcudants COMMON ORDT]R (ORAI,): I Icard Nir'. .\r inash Dcsai, lcarned Senior CoLr ', ;el rr'presenling Mr. M. l'ranar. lcarnc'rl counsel lbr the petitioner

2. Thcsc tri o levisions arc llled under Artic e - 227 <tf the Constilr-rtion o1'lndia. challenging the orders, both da:, cl i 1.12.2025 in l his Cotrrt rrutlc thc lirllorr ine I.A. No.735 ol l()li and [.,\. \o.816 of 2024 in O.S. No.i28 ol'2009 passed b)'lealnecl ll Aclditional District and Sessions Judge, Mcdchal

- Matka.jgiri l)isLr.ict at Medchal

3. Rcspondcnt Nos.l and 2 herein are the ple ntiffs, ivhile thc petitioner helein and other respondcnt Nos.3 to 7 art he defendants in the aforesaid sr-rit. .lhc plaintifls llled the said suir i O.S. No.328 of f

2009, to declare the registered GPA bearing document No.i541 of 1990, dated 09.08.1990 and the consequential registered sale cieed bealing document No.8063 ol 1990, datcd 10.09. 1990 as Iiull and void and also to grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants frorn alienating the suit schedule property by way of sale, mortgage, gift and leasc etc., in lavour of third parties

During pendency of the said suit, respondent Nos.l and 2 hcreir.r - plaintiffs llled an interlocutory application vide l.A. No.6l 5 ol20 19. to send the altrrcsaid original GPA and the original parlitiorr deed bearing document No.2211 of 1990, dated 30.04.1991, atong with thumb irnpressions of the petitioners fbr obtaining expcrt's opinion. l'[re satnc was allowed on 29.08.20 I9. Even then, they did not producc the said documents original sale deed/partition deed datcd 30.04.199 I lor comparing their finger prints thereon with the disputed docurrent i.e., origirral GPA. Therefbrc, learned trial Courl closed the said t.A. on l0.t 1.2022. Thereafter', challenging thc said order dated lO.ll.2022. respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein flled a revision vide C.R P No.3l46 ol 2022, and this Court allowed the said rcvision on payment of costs ol Rs. 10,000/- vide order dated 03.03.2023. Ultimately, the l\l_ I CRP No\ 71r & 80i orl016 L

) [1. (P No. rrl .t 8( i ol1026 said documents were scnt lbl expert's opinion. ' re expcrt has submitted his ri'porr on 11.0i,2014.

5. I ltert:allct'. resl-rondelt Nos.l and 2 herein tayc filed the aforesaid tu,,o applicalionsvide I.A. Nos.735 of 2025 ar l8l6 of 2024. to reopen the case lbr the purposc ol summoninlr the Assistant DirecLol and Scientist '('' C'FSI , Il1,derabad, olficc tl' I)irecror. ol Forensic Science Scrviccs. Minis1r1, ol I{ome Aff'air: rnd ro appoinl an Advocatc Colrrnissioner to L-xarlinc the said expr r and mark his report, respcctirclr. Ihc sanrc iras opposed by the p: itioners herein by filing courltcr cor.rrcndinq that tl.rc relicfi sought b1, i e plaintills are impermissible Lrrrdcr lau,.

6. Vide iurpr,rgncd ordcrs clatecl ll.12.2025,lerr ned trial Court allou,ed both thc applications holding that il the expr t is examined, no hann,'vor,rlci [:re caused to t-he dclendants since thev will have their right to cross-erullirre hirn. Cliallenging the s,r d orders. the pelitioners lrcreirr lllcrl thr prcscnt rcr isions.

7. N,lr. Avinasli Desai, learned Scnior Counse . rvould contend that respondent Nos. I and 2 - plaintiffs are negligt nt and are not diligent in prosecuting their own suit. 'lhe suit is c1 the year 2009. They are no1 ill a position to proceed with the sui1. I,espite granting I

KL..I Cl(l'\o\ 7li & 80j ot l0l(, ample opportunities, they did not produce original GPA/Sate Deed. Therefore, they cannot seek rcopening of their cvidence after lapse ol nine (09) yeals. WithoLrt considering the said aspecrs. learned trial Court allowed both the said applications. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down in K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamyr and Bagai Construction through its proprietor Lalit Bagai v. Gupta Building Material Store2.

8. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, it is apt to note that the impugned orders both arc dated 11.12.2025. Thc petitioner herein frled the present rei,isions only on 21 .02.2026. As discussed above, there is no challenge to thc order dated 29.08.20 l9 passed by learned trial Court in I.A. No.6 I 5 of 20 i 9. It is also apt to note that vide order dated 03.03.2023, this Court allowed CIiP No.3 146 of 2022. There is no challenge to it. Ultimately, the GPA was relerred to thc expert's opinion. -f he expcrl gave his opinion. Now, respondent Nos.l and 2 herein have filed the atbresaid applications to reopen tl.reir evidence and also to appoint an Advocate Con-rnrissioncr for the purpose ol examination ol exped and also marking of his report. On consideration olthe said aspects only, learned trial Court allowed both '. (zor r) t I scc 275 '?. lzor:y t+ scc t

the applications. 'l-herefbre, the impugned orders do'r rt sLrffer ll'om KL,I ( l'r.los ;17 & E01.f202( an1, infirurity ancl the pctitioner lailed to rnakc t trt any case. lbur tirnes lirr submission ol report by lear red Advocate Therefbrc. both thc rer isiorrs are liable to bc disrnissed

9. lhc present Civil Revision Pctitions I r -' accordir-rgly dismissed

10. l'hc im;rugned orders are dated I 1.12.2015. [t is brought to the notice C)1'this Clouft that lcarned trial Court adiotr ncd the matter Commissioner afler cxatnination ol'FSI- Expen. 'l'lr aloresaid suit O.S. No.328 o1' 2009 is ol the vcar 2009. 'fhert l-e, leamed II Additional Distlict and Sessions Judge. Medchal - Mr tkajg.iri District at Medchat is directed to dispose ol the said suit stlic, v in accordance with law within a period ol three (0.i) months frour t t ' date of receipt ol copy ol this order, by conducting day-to-day prcr :edings. In the circumstances olthe cascs, there shall be Ito order as L i costs As a scquel t.hereto, misccllaneous petitions, i1 any, pending in the revisions shall stand closed Sdi, .. VIJAYA LAKSHMI SSiI STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// i To, SECTION OFFICER Malkajgiri District at

1. The ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal One CC to Sri M Pranav, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies

ABK/kam dchz

HIGH COURT DATED: 1310312026

COMMON ORDER

CRP Nos: 737 and 805 of2026 DISMISSING THE CRPs .-/<-s ri,!: Str_ri ,t i / tilB 20?$ t! ovto 'v 71o '\ i )- ,< ()/ tc/=l2a