Telangana High Court
CRP/4075/2025 of Darshanam Pavan, Vs Dayanand Vegetable Market Society, on 6 February 2026
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAYOF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 4074 & &75 OF 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 4074 ot 2025 Petition under Arlicle 227 of the
[ 33781
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAYOF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 4074 & &75 OF 2025
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 4074 ot 2025
Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order datd2010812025 Passed in 1.A.No.372 ot2O25in 1.A.No.297 of 2025in O.S.No.2070of 2025on the file of the Court of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
Between:
1. Darshanam Pavan, S/o Late D. Prakash, Age. 35 Yrs., Occ. Broker. H.No. Flat No.1 , Sri Sai Excellency Apartments, Bakshmi Nagar Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad.
2. Sama Narin Reddy, S/o S. Bhaskar Reddy, Age. 37 Yrs., Occ. Business, 17-1- 386/SN/1 0-1 5, Sagar Road, Charnpapet, Hyderabad.
,,,Petitioners/Respondents/Defendants
ANO
1 . Dayanand Vegetable Market Society, Rep. by its Secretary B. Raghuveer Reddy, S/o Late B. Ram Reddy, Age. 56 Yrs., Occ. Secretary, Fl.No.17-2-581, Madanapet, Hyderabad.
2. Darshanam Krishnaveni, Wo Late D. GoMham, Age. 53 Yrs., Occ. Business, H.No. 1 7-2-85718, Madanapet, Old Eidgah, Madanapet, Hyderabad, Telangana.
3. Darshanam Andalu, Wo D. Kumar, Age. 52 Yrs., Occ. Business, H.No.17-2- 857/8, Madanapet, Old Eidgah, Madanapet, Hyderabad, Telangana.
4. K. Anitha Reddy, Wo Late Pratap Reddy, Age. 64 Yrs., Occ. Business, H.No.17- 2-821, Madanapet, Arya Samaj, Hyderabad, Telangana.
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS
!!-r--.
l.A. NO: 1OF 2025
Petition under Section 'l 51 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleasBd to stay all further proceedings in o.s. No. 2070 of 2025 on the file of the XIX Junior civil Judge, city civit court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the present civil Revision petition in the interest of justice and equity.
Counsel for the Petitioner
Counsel for the Respondents
: Ms. Pasumarthy Pavithra Sai
: Mr. G. Sundaresan representing
Mr. Sunil Gawasane
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO 4075 0F 2025
Petition under Anide 227 of the constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 2010812025 passed in t A.No 371 of 2025 in o.S.No.2070 ot 2o2son the file of the Court of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
Between:
AND
Darshanam Pavan, S/o Late D. Prakash, Age. 35 yrs, Occ. Broker, H.No. Flat No.1 , Sri Sai Excellency Apartments, Lakshmi Nagar Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad Sama Narin Reddy, S/o S. Bhaskar Reddy, Age. 37 yrs, Occ. Business, i7-1_
386/SN/10-15, Sagar Road, Champapet, Hyderabad.
... Petitioners/Respodnents/Defendants
1. Dayanand Vegetable Market Society, Rep. by its Secretary B. Raghuveer Reddy, S/o Late B Ram Reddy, Age.56 yrs, Occ. Secretary, H.No..l7_2_5g1, Madanapet, Hyderabad.
2. Darshanam Krishnaveni, Wo Late D. Gowtham, Age. 53 yrs, Occ. Business.
H.No.17 -2-857 tB, Madanapet, Otd Eidgah, Madanapet, Hyderabad, Telangana.
3. Darshanam Andalu, Wo D. Kumar, Age. 52 yrs, Occ. Business, H.No.17_2_
857/8, Madanapet, Otd Eidgah, Madanapet, Hyderabad, Telangana.
4. K. Anitha Reddy. Wo Late Pratap Reddy, Age. M yrs, Occ. Business, H.No.17_
2-821 , Madanapet, Arya Samaj, Hyderabad, Telangana.
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/PLAINTIFFS
l.A. NO: 1OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstanoes stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S. No. 2O70 of 2O25 on tle file of ttre XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition in the.
interest of justice and equity
Counsel for the Petitioner : Ms. Pasumarthy Pavithra Sai Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. G. Sundaresan representing Mr. Sunil Gawasane The Court made the following:
L
1.
t
:
I
L
i
l
t
!
b
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
HONOURA
RI USTIC
KOS
CTVIL REVISION PETITI ON Nos.4074 & 4075 of2025
DATE:06.02.2026
Between:
Darshanam ])avan.
Age: 35 \'rs, ( )cc: llrokcr,
H.No. Flat No.[, Sn Sai Irrct'lltrtcr \qrrttttncnts, Lakshmi Nagar (-okrnt, Saitla brtl, Hyderabad and anothcr.
. . Petitioners
\\t)
Dayanand Ycgctablc \Iarkct 5t,ctt tr.
Rep. by its Sccrctarv I3.l{aghut t',.r' l{c,l,lr.
S/o. Latc Il.llarn [{ctlclr,
Age: 56 yrs, ()cc: Scctctan.
H.No. 1 7-2-5it l. \ladirlr:rl)( r.
Flydetabad and 3 othtrs.
Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
COMMON ORDER:
Sincc thc issuc in thc ittst:urt (.n il ltcvisions Pertiuons is one and the same and partics tlrcrcto :trt rtlso s;ttttc, thev are heard and are decided by this (-r,tnmotr ( )rtlt r
6. '
2. Civil Itcvision Pctition No.4074 of 2025 is Eled by the peutioncrs challenging thc ordet dated 20.08.2025, in I.A.No.372 ot 2025 in I.,\.No.297 of 2025 in O.S.No.2070 of 2025, Passed by the XIX Junior Crr-il Judgc, Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad; and Civil Rcvisi<rn [)c tition No.4075 of 2025 is also frled by t]rc petitioners challcrrgirrg thc ordet dated 20.08.2025, in I.A.No.371 of 2025 nl O.S.No.2070 ot 202-5, passed by the XIXJunior CivilJudge, City Cir.il Cotrrt, Ilrdcrabad
3. Ilcanl \ls. l)asumarthy Pavithra Sai, learned counsel for thc pctitioncrs; ancl Ilr. (i.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing on bchall- <,f \[r. Sr-rnil (iawasanc, learned counsel for the respondcnts
4. I'ide rhe irnpr-rglcd ordets; the Trial Coutt allowed the aforcsard two I..\s- trlctl br thc rcspondents permitting Lhem to amcnd thc plairr t
5. 'l trc: rnstant (-ivi[ ltcvision Petitions have been filed by tlrc periri.rrcrs assliling thc inrpugmed otders passed by the Tnal (lourt on I
three grounds. Firstly, according to the pctiti()ncrs by virtue of the said amcndment sought for and which has beer.r alkrrved by the Trial Court, thc vety naturc of the property in disptrtc stands changed, which otlcrwisc is not permissiblc as the plaint u as tilcd for declaring the suit schedule propcrtv as an open lancl. \\ Irt'reas, br. way of the amendment petitions, tlrc respondents rr()\\'statc that the suit schedule property is in fact including thrcc shops rrrc;rstrring 101t. x 12 ft. i.e. 120 sq. [t. each siruated on thc suit schcdult l)r( )pcrn'. Secondly, great prejudice would be causcd to thc irrtcrcst ol tlrc pctitioners in view o[ the I.As. gctting all()wcd, rs thc \.cr\ nltrrr( r,l- thc suit gcts changed. Lasdy, the respondent No- I Socictl is rr.t rcgistcrcd Sociery and there was no sufficicnt matt'rirl iu ail;rlrlt' rrith rhc Society to substantiate their right ovcr thc strit schctlrrlt l)r( )l)('r t\
6. So far as thc first groLrnd raisctl ll tlrt pt tilioncr that the nature o[ the property in disputc s,t>u[d gct clrarrst.l, havinc gone thtough the plcadings and the matcrials available orr rccortl it is tbund that the suit schedule propett\. rclnalns the samc, t rct pr ti rr tlrc fact that the respondents have added the fact that thete are three shops measuring l0ft. x 1,2 tt. i.c. 1,20 s<1. tt. cach situated in the suit schedule property. Thus, thcrc docs rrot scern to bc any change in the nature of property in dispute.
7. So 6ar as thc groLrnd of great preiudice is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that ii ttrc petidoners establish the fact that there are no shops situatccl in rhc sLrit schcdulc property, the suit itself would get drsmisscd on th is sr< ,trnd and in case there are any shops already cxisung, as has bccn conlcnrcd bv thc respondents, the maftet would bc dccidcd bv thc 'l ri;rl ( -( ,rrrr ()n its own merits in accordance with law.
8. So far as tlrt thirtl sround that the respondent No.l Society not being a rcgistcrctl borh antl rr has ft) substantiate its right over the suit schcdulc pr()pcrt\, thrs (.ourr is of rhc opinion that it is a matter of evidence rvtrich nct'tls rr, [x aclcluccd on either side to ptove and disprovc thc contt'ntiorrs. Lttrncd counsel for the petitioners submits that tlrc bounriarics o1- tlrt suit also r',,ould get changed. However, this I ,!
again is a matter of evidence, more pa-rucularlv s'hcn pnna.faae it appears that thc shops are said to har.e bccn located in thc samc prcrnises of thc suit schcdulc properqr.
9. Thereforc, thc instant Civil Revision Petitions bcin!. dcvoid oF mcrit, deserves to be and are accordingly dismisscd
10. ,\s a scquel, misccllancous petiuons penrling ii unr. shall stand closed. Florvevcr, there shall be no ordcr as t() cosrs //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Court of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad
2. One CC to Ms. Pasumarthy pavithra Sai, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Mr. Sunil Gawasane, Advocate tOpUCl
4. Two CD Copies DL/B O ,,.-.
HIGH COURT DATED: 0610212026
COMMON ORDER
DISMISSING THE CRPs F'* I ,-.o CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 4074 & 4075 OF ZO2S Y THE S TCH i4 o a-
1.. . J t 7fr'tF f4 r18 ? * j:: A,ug