CRP/3913/2025 of Smt. Shobha Veta Vs The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer on 23 January 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3913 OF 202s Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia against the Order dated 23-09-2025 in O.S. SR. No. 2650 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the 1't Junior Civil Judge, City Givil Court at Secunderabad.

Between:

1. Smt. Shobha Veta, Wo. Veta Praful Kumar, Aged 65 years Rl/o. Plot No.1 /A, Ravi Co-operative-Society, Opp: SBI Bank, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad

2. V. Rohit Praful @ Rohit Veta, S/o. Veta Praful Kumar, Aged years Rl/o. Plot No.

1 /A, Ravi Co-operative Society, Opp: SBI Bank, Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad

... Revision Petitioners / Plaintiffs

AND

1. The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirumalgherry tVandal, Secunderabad

2. All Concerned.

...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T. SURYA SATISH

Counsel for the Respondents: --

The Court at the stage of admission made the following ORDER :

IN'THE IIICTI COTIRT IIOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT YDEITABAD

I'IIF] TIONOTIITABLE SRI JUSTICF] P.SAM KOSI{Y

Bct$'een:

Ms.Shobha Vela and another

... Pctitioners

And

'l'he Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Thirumalgheny Mandal, Secunderabad.

. . . Respondcnt

OItDEIt

'I'hc instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed assailing the docket order dated 23.09.2025 whereby the suit which the petitioncrs had filed has been retumed by the trial Court.

2.

A perusal ofthe docket order which has been filed would go to shorv that the petitioners-plaintiffs had filed suit seeking fbr the lollowing relie{-s:

" l . Declaring Veta Pralul Kumar as presumed to be dead in terms of Section I ll of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) and Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act for missing past 35 years.

2. Declaring the plaintiffs as sole surviving legal heirs and successors of Veta Pralul Kumar;

3. and pass such other relief(s) which the Plaintiffs are entitled for, in the interest ofjustice."

CRP.No.39l3 of 2025

l)ate :2-1.01 .2026

\--\

3.

The suit was not registered that was at SR stage pending vide OSSR.No.265012025. After a couple of hearings, the leamed trial Court has returned the suit on the ground that the petitioners- ptaintiffs' have not been able to file cogent material and proof in respect of the husband of petitioner No.l and father of petitioner No.2 being missing and not traceable for more than 30 years. In the absence of any proof, suit was retumed.

4.

At the outset, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view expressed by the trial Court at SR stage while retuming of the suit in fact amounts to deciding the suit itself on merits or without permitting the petitioners even to adduce evidence in suppon ol their contention. This Court also finds force in the argument of leamed counsel for the petitioners that the said findings could have been arrived at only after appreciating the evidence that the petitioners would have adduced before the trial Court.

5.

Another aspect which needs to be appreciated is the contention ofthe petitioners-plaintiffs in the plaint that husband ol plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 being not traceable for the last more than 30 years, the petitioners-plaintiffs are not in a position to state whether the said person is alive or not. Another aspect which has been brought to the notice of the Court is that on the sarre stand thcre rvas a paftition suit flled within the lamily rnembers, where the petitioners were the plaintiffs and said par-tition suit stood allowed in their favour. There again the mother of the so-called rnissing person and other siblings of missing pcrsorr u,ho rvcre dctendants in the said suit for partition have also acceded to the lact that the petitioner No.1's husband and father of petitioner No.2 has gone missing and is not traceable for the last 30

years.

6.

ln vieu,ofthe aforesaid factual matrix ofthe case, the docket order dated li 09.2025 to the extent of retuming of the suit is set aside and quashed and the petitioners-plaintiff are permitted to resubmit the suit befbre the concerned Court. The concerned Court in turn is directed to register the same and proceed on the suit and only after due appleciation of the evidence and other materials on record take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law and on its own rnerits and dispose of the suit accordingly.

(

{

7.

The Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Cor.rsequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/. K.MADHAVI

SISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

The 1"t Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Tirumalgherry Mandal, Secunderabad One CC to SRl. T. SURYA SATISH, Advocate [OPUC]

Two CD Copies

To, krrl v

HIGH COURT

DATED: 2310112026