Telangana High Court
CRP/4514/2025 of Kum. Keshapaga Babitha Vs Sedakari Mahender 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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4514 OF 202s Petition under Article 1 '15 of Constrtution of lndia aggrieved by the 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 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4514 OF 202s Petition under Article 1 '15 of Constrtution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 24-11-2025 passed in E.A No.261 of 2025 in E.P.No 82 of 2025 on thefileof the Court of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civrl Court at Hyderabad.
Between:
Kum. Keshapaga Babitha, d/o K.Babu Lal aged about 47 years, occ. Household, rlo 1-9-92,93/A and fu1, Ram Nagar Hyderabad.
... Petitioner
(Petitioner/J. Dr.No.4)
AND
1. Sedakari Mahender, s/o Sri [Vlohan Sedakkari aged about 43 years, occ:
Business, r/o H.No. 1-S-6/A/15, Azamabad, Hyderabad . .. Res pondent (Res.No.1 /Decree Holder)
2. K.Babu Lal, died per L Rs.
3. K Balamukund, s/o K.Babu Lal, aged 54 years, occ. Service
4. K.Bharath Raj, s/o K.Babu Lal, aged 42 years, occ. Employee, Nos. 2 to 4 arc tlo H.No. '1-7-922, Near Brahmma Gari Temple, Ram Nagar Musheerabad, Hyderabad.
...Respondents
(Responden ts/J udgment Debtors)
l.A. No. 1 oF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavrt filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No. 82 of 2023 on the file of the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main C.R.P., in the interests of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri K Shrikanth (No representation)
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri M Srinivas Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER
, --?-..1-idF+*rra!7
-;f
f/
./
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT ITYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SNj I KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.4514 of 2025
Date of Order : 30.01.2026
BETWEEN:
Kum. Keshapaga Babitha,
D/o.K.Babu Lal
Petitioner
AND
Sedakari Mahcnder,
S/o.Sri Mohan Sedakkari and others
Re'spon dents
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:
Hcard Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy, learne< counsel for respondent No.I (Decree Holder). None for thL' I etirioner
2. When the matter is taken up for hearin 1, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner to-day Even on the previous date of hearing, there was no rep. :sentation on beha,lf of the petitioner
3. However, Mr. M. Srinivas Reddy, leit necl counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondent l,lo.1 (Decree Holder), and submitted that the challenge rr the instant ctp _45-14 _2025 PSK,J Revision was to the rejection of the application frled by the petitioner herein for setting aside the ex pa-rte order dated 28.06.2023 passed by the Trial court. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P. vide tr.P.No.261 of 2025 in E.P.No.82 of 2023 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 with a delay of $871 days which had been dismissed by the Trial Court vide order dated 24.11.2025 and which is under challenge in the instant Revision. He further submitted that proceedings in the E. P. had been finalized and possession of the suit schedule property had been granted to respondent No.1 (Decree Holder). He further submitted that since the proceedings in the E.P. stood closed, the issue in the instant Civil Revision Petition no longer survives for adjudication and hence the szune may be dismissed as infructuous.
4. In view of above submission, this Court is of the view that since the decree itself stood executed and possession of the suit schedule property had been handed over to respondent No.1 (Decree Holder), the cause in the Civil Revision Petition does not survive for adjudication Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed as infructuous. No costs.
-":94;,{ric114d ? To, S a/l'S I .tp 4514_)0)5 P5K,]
5. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications rending if any, shall stand closed.
\ SDi- B.REKHA RANI ASS lSTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER
( //TRUE COPY//
1. The I Senior Crvil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad 2 One CC to Sl K Shrikanth, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Srr tr4 Srinivas Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 4 Two CD Coptcs
HIGH COURT DATED: 3010112026
ORDER
CRP.No.4514 ot 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP AS INFRUCTUOUS fir'/ o i() (- IHE S14 ).: '. t_- 4 [1:B )l17t 'i- .t .. .\, o,o\ * It ,i .. ,i . isPnrcr a ab ( .. -:: \