CMA/495/2025 of Md.Khaleel Vs Smt. Gori Bee on 9 March 2026

JUDGMENT

This Civil lviisceilaneous Appeal is filed aggrieved by the order dated

11. t)3.2025 passecl in I.A.tio.597 of 2024 in O.S.No.32 of 2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District. 2.. Heard Mr. f4irza I'lahmood AIi Baig, learned counsel for the appellants. Despite service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of tire resporrdents.

3. \l/hen the matter was taken up for hearing on 19.02.2026, there was no representartion on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the matter was directed to be listed on 26.02.2026. On 26.02.2026 also, thei-e was no representation. Accordingly, the matter was directed to be listed on 05.03.2CI26 under the caption "For Orders", making it clear that

.--'-----.--'-! I' ! I i i ii , i i ii t, II I i Iit I t i i I I iI I t I if the responJents'counsel failed to appear on the next date of hearing, appropriate c,rders would be passed based on the merits of the case. On 05.03.2026,:he matter was posted to u9.tr3.:!A25, anci even toclay t[-;er(: is no represeirtation on behalf cf ttre respr':ndeirls.

4. Learnec! counsel for the appellants suomits tlr;lt tlre appellants/ plaintiffs filed o.s.No.32- of 7-015 seekinS partit.ii:n and separate possession of the Suit Scheduie I to XV orooert!e:;. After framing of issues on 26.10.202,.2, the plaintiffs were not diligent enough to file the neat copy of the plaint by the reXt datr: i.e ., 23.11.2C22 and also on

07. L2.2022on which date the suit lva:;;lisnti:..se:c i'cir Cefault. Later, it was restored videl.A.No.63 of 20?.3 on 01.0-?.2023 cn costs of Rs.1000/- and on further corrdition to file chief affirla'rit i:f P.V',r.1 on 01.03.2A23' But, the appellants fai ed to file chief-affidavit of P.\l.l- either on 01.03.2023 or on 15.03.2023, due to which the suit was disn-rissed for default for the second time. S. Learnec counsel for the apoellants furtht:r submits that the chief-evirlence affidavit of P.W.1 was irtadverterrtly not properltT served on tl- e counsel for ttre defenrj ants, which led to the seccnd dismissal on 15.03.2023. It is furtnei-:;t-ibmitted that the suit relate:; to partition and r;eparate possession of the Suit Schedule I to XV properties, has been pending since 2015, and therefore one opportunity may be granted to the: appellants to prosecute tne suit ilri merits.

1J

6. Having regard to the facts and cir-cumstances, and the suit for partition and separate possession of Suit Schedule I to XV properties was l'ileci in the year 2.015 and since the rights of the parties are involved over the immovable properties, this Court is of the view that the appellants may be afforded one more opportunity to prosecute the suit, however, with some conditions.

7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 11.03.2a25 passed in I.A.No.597 of 2024 in O.S.No.32 of 2015 by the Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District, and the suit will be restored ic its original stage subject to the appellants paying a sum of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) to the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, Hyderabad, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the original suit as expeditiously as possible. There shail be no order as to costs. As a seque!, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd,. M. MANJULA JOINT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// 6 \ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Vikarabad District.

2. One CC to Sri Mirza Mahmood Alibaig, Advocate IOPUC]

3. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, High Court for the State of Telangana

4. Two CD Copies J ABK W

HIGH COURT DATED: 09,0312026

JUDGMENT

CMA.No.495 of 2025 ALLOWING THE CMA KS 2 i r,1[R 2[26 oU * * .,i ..' ;, raf zf *