Telangana High Court
CRP/918/2025 of Smt. P. NAGARANI Vs Sri Prodduturi Ravikumar on 5 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 918 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 918 OF 2025
Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 04-09-2024 passed in |.A.No.160 of 2024 in OS.No.246 of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Xl Additional District & Sessions Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.
Between:
1. Smt. P. NAGARANI, W/O LATE SRI P CHANDRAIAH, Aged about 59 years, Occ: House Wife,
2. SRI P.SRIKANTH, S/o LATE SRI P.CHANDRAIAH, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business
3. Sri P.Sridhar, S/o Late Sri P.Chandraiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ.
Business,
4. Sri P.Sreeman, S/o Late Sri P.Chandraiah, Aged bout 39 years, Occ.
Business.
5. Sri P.Srinivas, S/o Late Sri P.Chandraiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ.
Business.
All are R/o H.No.17-1-382N12127, Vaishali Nagar, Champapet, Hyderabad.
...Petitioners/Respondents No.8 to 1 2
AND '
1. Sri Prodduturl Ravikumar, S/o Sri P.Narsimhulu, aged about 54 years, Occ.
Business, Rio H.No.9-7-7414, Road No.1, Maruthi Nagar, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad-500059.
2. SRI P. NARSIMULU, S/O SRI CHANDRAIH, DIED PER LRS
3. Sri Prodduturi Dilip Kumar, S/o Sri P.Narsimhulu, Aged about 52 years, Occ.
Business, R/o H.No.9-7-15l4, Road No. 4, Yadagirinagar, Sanatosh Nagar, Hyderabad-500059
4. Sri P. Anand Kumar, S/o Sri P.Narsimulu, Aged 52 years, occ. Business Rio H.No.9-7-7414, Maruthi Nagar, Road No. 1, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad-S9.
5. Sri P. Lingaiah, S/o Sri P.Narsimulu, Aged 68 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o H.No.2-7, Maheshwaram Vil & Mdl, Rangareddy Dist.
6. Sri P. PRABHAKAR, S/o Sri P.Narsimulu, Aged 65 years, occ. Business R/o H.No.9-7-7414, Maruthi Nagar, Road No, '1 , Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad-59.
7. SRI CHANDRAIH, S/O SRI P. NARSIMULU, DIED PER LRS PETITIONERS
B Sri P. Suryaprakash, S/o Sri P.Narsimulu, Aged 35 year R/o H.No.9-7-74l4, Maruthi Nagar, Road No. 1, Santhor;
9 Smt V Vijaya Laxmi, Wo Sri V.Krishnaiah D/o Sri t'
years, Occ House Wife, R/o H.No.9-7-15l3, Yadagiri Ne I
Hyderabad.
10.Smt. Y. ARUNA, W/o LAXMINARAYANA DIED PER
NO 11 TO 14
1l Sri Y.VENUGOPAL, S/O. LAXMINARAYANA AND LA't 47 YEARS, OCC, BUSINESS.
12.SRI Y ESHWAR RAO, S/O. LAXMINARAYANA AND U, 45 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE ETMPLOYEE
13.SMT. Y VAMSHI PRIYA, W/O SRIDHAR D/O LA)I
LAATE Y ARUNA, AGED 43 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS
14.SRI Y HARISH, SiO LAXMINARAYANA AND LATE '/
YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE.
RESPONDENT NO 11 TO 14 ARE R/O H.NO.4-1.7€, ABIDS, HYDERABAD.
...RESPONDENT/PLAIl{ TIFF/DEFENDANTS
LA. NO: 1OF 2025
Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circunr affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may trr further proceedings in pursuance of the orders in 1.A.No,160 cf of 2014 on the file of Xl Addl. District and Session Judge, Fl
L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad dated. 04.09.2024, pending disposal of t)
tances stated in the
pleased to stay all
2024 in O.S.No.246
rnga Reddy District,
lP No. of 2025.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Koka Satyanarayana Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri K. Sreenivas Counsel for the Respondent No.3: Ms. T. Dhanalakshmi The Court made the following: ORDER
., occ. Govt. Service
Nagar, Hyderabad-
\arsimulu, aged 66
ar, Santhosh Nagar,
.RS RESPONDENT
- Y ARUNA, AGED
E Y ARUNA, AGED
4INARAYANA AND
ARUNA, AGED 42
HANUMAN TEKDI,
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RA'ESHWAR RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.918 OF 2025
DATE: 05.02.2026
Between:
Smt. P. Nagarani and others
...Petitioners
AND
Sri Prodduturi Ravi Kumar and others.
...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.
ORDER
The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 04.09.2024 passed in I.A.No.160 of 2024 in O.S.No.246 of 2014 by the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District (for short'trial Court'), whereby, the application filed by the petitioners seeking to club O.S.No.246 of 20t4 and O.S.No.936 of 2019, for the purpose of conducting a joint trial, was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri Koka Satyanarayana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K. Sreenivas, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Ms.T.Dhanalakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, I.A.No.16( filed by the petitioners/defendants Nos.B to 12, s O.S.No.246 of 2Ot4 and O.S.No.936 of 2019, for conducting a joint trial. The father of petir Mr. P.Chandraiah is defendant No.6 and respond- 10 are the own brothers and sisters, being tt Mr. P.Narasimhulu i.e., respondent No.2/det Respondent No.2 herein is the original owner , land called "ISUKABAYI LAND,, admeasuring A( Sy.No.342, Ac.2.L9 gts. in Sy.No.343, Ac Sy.No.344, Ac.0.30 gts. in Sy.No.345, Ac. Sy.No.374, Ac.0.10 gts. in Sy.No.375, Ac.( Sy.No.349lAA and Ac.0.33 gts in Sy.Nc, admeasuring Ac.10.16 gts. situated at Maheshur, and Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (hereinafter r 'suit schedule property'). of 2024 was :eking to club he purpose of 'oner namely 1t Nos.1, 3 to e children of rndant No.1. ,f agricultural .3.33 gts. in .11 gts. in ).09 gts in .31 gts. in 350, totally ram Village :ferred to as
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits I hat a suit for partition in respect of the suit schedule ;t .operty vide O.S.No.246 of 2OL4 was filed and another suit vitt I O.S.No.936 of 2019 was filed by the petitioners herein setking specific performance of the Agreement, dated 1g.11.2C(1. Both the suits were sought to be clubbed vide I.A.No.160 tf 2024, but /
the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the suit schedule properties in both the suits are one and the same, and the joint trial of both the suits would be advantageous for objective and just decisions of the matters, as they are interrelated and connected with one another. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order.
5. A perusal of the record shows that the trial Court, while dismissing the application in I.A.No.160 of 2024 in O.S.No.246 of 2014 by the learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, observed as under: "It is quite obvious even if the trial is held separately and separate judgments gets rendered, it does not lead to conflicting judgments and it does not cause any prejudice as such to neither of the parties. Rather clubbing of the suits does not in any manner would be advantageous to neither of the parties nor does it facilitate this Court for earlier disposal of the suit, nor would be advantageous for objective and just decision of the subject matter there the scope and nature of enquire in both the suits is distinct and different. So viewed from any of the stand points, there does not seem any element or ground for clubbing of the suits for the purpose of joint trial. Accordingly petition is devoid of merit and force and is liable to be dismissed."
6. The trial Court duly considered the a( vantages and disadvantages of clubbing the suits, as well as : -oceeding with them separately. Upon such consideration, it riq htly concluded that clubbing the suits in any manner would neit rer benefit the parties nor facilitate the expeditious disposal of t 1e cases. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegalit r or infirmity.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the order of the trial Court in I.A.No. 60 of 2024 in O.S.No.246 of 2074 dated 04.09.2024 by lte learned XI Additional District & Sessions Judge, L.B. Naga' Ranga Reddy District. However, it is made clear that both < vil suits shall proceed simultaneously, but with separate trials There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pendirr t, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- I1. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASS I JTANT REGISTRAR \ secrtou oFFrcER L.B I agar, Ranga Reddy To,
1. The Xl Additional District & Sessions Judge District. (with records if any)
2. One CC to Sri Koka Satyanarayana Rao, Advocate [OPt C]
3. One CC to Sri K. Sreenivas, Advocate [OPUC]
4. One CC to Ms T Dhanalakshmi, Advocate [OPUC]
5. Two CD CoPies kam/ABK
I HIGH COURT DATED: 0510212026
ORDER
CRP.No.918 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP t rTE F A o .k qfo . -,,,i;i .. ';'\' /<.s r,ls lrc t/