CRP/4460/2025 of Shaik Mohammed Jahangir Vs The Commissioner on 23 January 2026

1. The Commissioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

2. Tie District Collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Road, Abids, Hyderabad

3. The Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ... Res pon de nts/Defend a nts l.A. No. 1 of 2025

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings in O.S. No. 365/2014 pending on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, till the disposal of the present main CRP, in the circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice CIVIL stoN No: 4460 of 20.25 petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggri_el/g! by^the Order and decree dated 07t11t2025 passed in 1.A.No.6270 of 2025 in OS No.365 of 2014 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad' I I I

Between Shaik Mohammr:d Jahangir, S/o Shaik Mohammed Ghouse, Rio 8-2-28413t1, Old Venkateshwara lrlagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ...Petitioner / Plaintiff AND

1. The Comm ssioner, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

2. rhe District collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Road, Abids, Hyderabad

3. The Tahsildar, Shaikpet Mandal, Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. ... Res pon de nts/Defenda nts l.A. No. 1 of 2025

the affidavit filerl in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the further proceedings in O.S.No.36512014 pending on the file of Hon'ble Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, till the disposal of the present main CRP, in the circumstanc€S rtf the case. CIVIL ION PETITION No: 2 ot 2025 Petition :nder Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order and decree dated 0T11112025 passed in 1.A.No.6272 of 2025 in OS No.365 of 2014 on the file of th,-. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: Shaik lvlohamrned Jahangir, S/o Shaik Mohammed Ghouse, R/o 8-2-284t3t1, Old Venkateshwaril Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad ... Petitioner/Plaintiff AND

1. The Comrnissioner, Greater Hyderabad tMunicipal Corporation, Tankbund, Hyderabad.

2. The District collector, Hyderabad District, Nampally Road, Abids, Hyderabad

3. The Tahsildar, shaikpet [\4andal, Road No.1, Banjara Hiils, Hyderabad. t.A. No. 1 of 2025 "'Respondents/Defendants the affidavit fil:d in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the fu.rthel nloceedings in O.S.No.36512014 pending on the fite bf Hon'ble Chief Judge, City Civil Cottrt at Hyderabad, till the disposal of the present main CRp, in the circumstances; of the case and in the interest of justice.

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI YOGESHWAR RAJ SAXENA Counsel for the Respondents: _ The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

t It I IIt i II I I I I I I I i I iI I I I I I i . TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT YDERABAD THIi HONOURABLE SRI JI.]STICE P.SAM KOSHY CRP.Nos.4458. 4460 and 4462 of 2025 Date:23.01 .2026 Between: Shaik Mc hammed Jahangir Petitioner And 'l'he Commissioner. Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Tankbund, Hyderabad and others. ltespondent COMNION OR-DER: lleard Mr.Yogeshwar Raj Saxena, Iearned counsel for the petitiorrer and perused the record.

2. -lhese are three civil revision petitions which have been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing three different docket orders passed on the same date i.e. 07.01 1.2025 by the Ctrief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in l.A.Nos.627l, 6270 and 6272 of 2025 which are the applications filed for reoperring of the evidence of plaintiff, the petitioner herein, receiving of the documents under Order 7 Rule 14(3) of C.P.C. and application filed under order XVIII Rule 17 of CPC to recall the plaint. fl's evidence respectively. * '- )".,

3. The contention of the petitioner that the suit which was filed by him through G.P.A. i.e. o.S.No.365 of 2014 against rhe respondent-defendant pending consideration before the trial Court for more than a decade. The suit filed by the plaintiff seeking for perpetual Injunction against the defendant. The suit which is more than a decade old undertook entire trial and which now stands posted for final arguments.

4. It is at the stage of final arguments that the aforesaid three [.As. were filed by the petitioner seeking reopening of evidence and recalling plaintiffs evidence. The basis for seeking for the aforesaid relief was firstly on the ground that the plaintiff now relied upon number of documents which by itself substantially strengthen the case of the plaintiff before the trial Court. Secondly, for the reason that till now the plaintiff has been represented through G.P.A. holder was not satisfied with the manner in which he was conducting the case. Therefore, the plaintiff is said to have discharged G.P.A. and now intends to pursue the suit by himself. However, the trial Court taking into consideration the averments J.

that the retitioner had made and having not satisfied rejected all three LAs. and posted the case for final hearing

5. Le arned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court could have irnposed some condition or some costs in the course of allowing, all aforesaid three I.As and secondly, the counsel fbr the petitionr:r contended that allowing olaforesaid I.As was very much necessat'y as the petitioner with the strength of evidence and documents now intended to receive shall be able to defend himself far more elfectively than as now stands and thus, prayed for allowing I.As.

6. Flaving heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record reveals that certain things which voluntarily disproves the contention of the petitioner is that firstly, the suit is one which was being pursued and prosecuted by the plaintiff for more than a decade, and for all these period the petitioner was represented through G.P.A. holder, that at no point of time did the plaintiff found the conduct of G.P.A. holder to be either suspicious or detrimental. It was the G.P.A. himself who had adduced evidence on behalf of the plaintiff which too was quite a period back. The petitioner also was aware of the fact that GPA was already examined and defendant is going to be examined before the trial Court which too, the plaintiff permitted to be proceeded with and defendant was examined and his evidence was closed. Thereafter, the matter stood posted for final arguments of the suit. It is at this stage, aforesaid three I.As have been filed. So far as the receiving of the documents is concerned, in terms of evidence of petitioner, these documents which the petitioner intends to bring on record are not one which was filed by the petitioner after the evidence was closed nor is it the case of the petitioner that these documents were not available with him, when the plaintiff s evidence was being recorded. The plaintiff having contested the suit quite for a long time was fully aware of the documents which he now intends to bring on record and no plausible explanation has been offered why it could not be filed or brought on record earlier at the time plaintiff s evidence was being recorded. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that finding arrived at by the trial Court cannot be found fault with or nor said to be erroneous or contrary to law and this court does not find any merits on the contentions put forth by the petitioner

7. A.ccordingly, all the civil Revision petitions are dismissed. There srall be no order as to costs Clons,:quently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closerl //TRUE COPY// Sd/- Sd/- P. PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, ABK /DL

1. The Chit:f Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2. One CC to Sri Yogeshwar Raj Saxena, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies \q-

r' / HIGH COURT DATED: 23101112026

COMMON ORDER

CRP Nos: 445ir,4460 and 4462 of 2025 DISMISSING ,ALL THE CRP'S WITHOUT CC,STS i I I I I i 6rfuh &r' HE

() t 0 6 i'iAR 2026 t *