Telangana High Court
CRP/4035/2025 of Mohammed Naseer Khan Vs Smt. Asra Fathima on 30 January 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 4035 OF 2025 Petition under Arlicle 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the docket order dated
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 4035 OF 2025
Petition under Arlicle 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the docket order dated 16-10-2025 passed in o.s.No.383 of 2017 on the file of the court of the lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.
Between:
Mohammed Naseer Khan, S/o lrrlohammed fvluneer Khan, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H No 8-1-398/PlV/ 103. Tolichowki, Hyderabad - 500 008
AND
... Petitione r/pla intiff
1. Smt Asra Fathima, Wo Jafer Bin Habeeb, Aqed about 44 vears, Occ.
Household.
2. Habeeb Abdulla, S/o Habeeb Alvi Bin Salam Al Aidroos, Aged about 40 years, Occ- Private Service.
Both R/o. H. No. 18-'1 1-381112, Jamal Banda, Barkas, Hyderabad - 500 005.
.-- Respondents/Defen da nts
lA NO:2 OF 2025
Petrtion under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed rn support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the lX Additronal chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad to expeditiously dispose the Suit vide O.S. No 383 of 2017.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. T. Neelima Reddy, counsel representing Mr. Mohammed Asif Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF'T
'LANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAI1T KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.4O35 of It, t25
Date of order: 3O.OL,2O26
BETWEEN
Mohammed Naseer Khal
Petitioner
And
Smt. Asra Fathima
and another
. 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 instant Civil Revision Petition has ber n filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution r India praying the Court to give a direction to the IX Additional O rief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to dispose of O.S.No.383 c'2017 as early as possible.
2. Heard Ms.T. Neelima Reddy, learned couns :l representing Mr.Mohammed Asif, learned counsel for the petitic r er.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioller (plarntiff) has filed the above suit, viz. , O. S. No.3B3 of 2017 under Order VII Rule 1 read with Section 26 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for cancellation of a Gift Settlement Deed dated 3l.O7.2OlO bearing Document No.3231 of 2010 registered at the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad; evidence of petitioner (plaintiff) commenced in the year 2O2O and the same finally stood closed on O2.Ol .2025; and the defendant's evidence r'vas closed on 25.06.2025; hou.ever, shortly thereafter, an application for reopening of defendants' evidence was filed which was allowed by the Trial Court on 22.08.2025, and the matter was thereafter hxed for further evidence of defendants ald nhich has further got dragged for some reason or the other in spite of costs being imposed; therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant Revision seeking an appropriate direction to the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to dispose of O.S.No.3B3 of 2OI7 as early as possible.
4. From a bare perusal of the pleadings and also from the records available, this Court finds that evidence of both parties have already been closed way back in June, 2025 and tt subsequently there was an application filed by *ft respondents ,x I
(defendants) to reopen, recall and receive docu:r ents. The said reca-ll application must have been allowed definit: y for the limited purpose of giving rvhatsoever further evidence t I tt was available and which they could not being on record earliert rnd, therefore it could not have been adjourned time and again as in the case of a reguiar suit in which evidence for the first time ir; teing proceeded vgith. Further, from a perusal of the record, it rlso shows that defendants have already been imposed fine fc - not adducing evidence in time.
5. Therefore, in view of above, this Court is rrL, lined to disposc of the instant Civil Revision Petition by directing ihe Trial Court which is seized of O.S.No.383 of 2Ol7 to disposc rf same as early as possible. The Trial Court is directed to ensur: that all efforts should be made in concluding trial of witnesses c
- the defendants when the matter stands fixed on 02.02.2026 1 rr hearing, and thereafter the Trial Court shall proceed and c:cide the same forthwith without any further deiay for the reasc r that the suit is of the year 20 17 which means it is almost 9 yearri 6, With these observations, the Civil Revisio.r Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
7. As a consequence, miscellarteous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- K,BHAVANI SWAM ASSISTANT REGI R //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The lX Additional Chief Judge, Crty Civil Court, at rabad
2. One CC to tt/ r l\4ohammed Asif, Advocate IOPUCI
3. Two CD Copies Kam/DL w.
HIGH COURT DATED:3010112026
ORDER
CRP.No.4035 of 2025 DISPOSING THE CRP i\r JE SI,q, € \ o o O ll r rIB 2026 *
* Or
\{ ak