Telangana High Court
CRP/4684/2025 of M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Narla Mounika on 31 December 2025
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4684 OF 2025 Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order passed in
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4684 OF 2025
Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order passed in l.A.No. 308 of 2025 in M.V.O.P.No.121 ot 2O21 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy Between:
M/s. Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Manager, TP Hub' lll Floor, Snehalata, Greenlands Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016
...PETITIONER/ ResPondent No. 5
AND
1. Narla Mounika, W/o. N.Dasharath, aged 26 years, Housewife
2. Narla Varshitha, Dio. N Dasarath, aged 7 years, Student
3. Narla Saketh, S/o. N.Dasarath, aged 7 years, Student,
4. Golla Yadamma, Wo Golla Adivaiah, aged 60 years, Housewife,
5. Golla Devaiah, S/o. Gundaiah, aged 65 years, All are r/o. 1-73, Sultanpur Village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy Diskict ..
..Respondents/ Petitioners
6. Sayatgari Mallesham, S/o. Anlaiah, major, Rider of Motor Cycle rlo. 2-32, Marvally Village. Vatpally Mandal, Sangareddy District
7. Syed Mahmood Ali, S/o Syed lvlaqsood AJi, aged. major, Owner of Motor Cycle AP 10 AV 1342, rlo 12-1-510, Lalpet, Lalaguda, Secunderabad
8. Shambulal Dhakar, S/o Modi Ram Dhakar, aged 51 years, Driver of Lorry No.
RJOgGC 4979, rlo. Rayta Village, Begum Taluq, Chiftorghar District, Rajasthan
9. Sandeep Motors Pvt. Ltd, rep. by its ownerParas Mal,-S/o. Ghisllal Dashore, major, Owner of Lorry. C/o. Dashora Road Lines, Dak Bunglow Road, Nimbahera, Chittorgarh
...RESPONDENTS/ Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
lA NO: 'f OF 2025
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circt nrsl.ances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in M.V.O.P.No . 121 oi 2021 on the fil,; of :he ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy, pending disposal o main CRP.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. A. ANASUYA
Counsel for the Respondent: -
The Court macie the following ORDER:
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGAT{A
AT ITYDERABAI)
THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE RENUKA YARA
C.R.P. No.4684 of 2O25
Date:31.12.2o25
Between:
M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited
... Petitioner
AND
Narla Mounika and 8 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:
Heard Srnt.A. Anasuya, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The present Civil Revision Petition has been liled by the petitioner-respondent No.5 challenging the order dated 04.11.2025 passed in t.A.No.30B of 2025 in M.V.O.P.No.121 of 2O2I on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.
3. I.A.No.3O8 of 2025 in M-V.O.P.No.l2l of 2O21 is hled under Order VI Ruie 17 of CPC read with Rule 28 of Civil Rules of Practice and Section 1 5 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking amendment to the cause title rvherein the claimants intended to not press M.V.O.P. against the owner irnd driver of the motor cycle which was involved in the accide: t and with an intention to press M.V.O.P. only against the driri r', owner and insurer of the lorry tanker which was involved in 1-h,: accident. The relevant portion of the prayer is extracted i r-rd produced below: "Therefore it is prayed that this Hon'ble court ma] pass order and permitted to mate consequential ,r cause tifle of respondents, columns 26 in para ! petition seeking relief against the respondent No.3 tl payer Colum also and in chief alfrdavit of para 3 against the respondent No.3 to 5 for and in prayer ,i batter disposal of the case, in the interest ofjustice zur, re pleased to ner.dment in c,f the claim 5i amd in the ;ee}<ing rclief r lurn also for enquiry."
4. The said I.A.No.308 of 2025 in M.V.O.P.N: L2l ol 2O2I was allowed by passing the following order: " I 1. Considering the facts and circumstances of t[.t on the arguments of both the Counsels this court is ( that the even though tJle nature of the suit would : arnendments and this court seize the jurisdiction fr,l this suit and application, but as per the provision ur RuIe 17 of Civil Procedure code, 19O8, to detenr questions in controversy between the parties, it just . to a.[ow the present petition to avoid the multiplicity of
12. Thus, instead of driving ttte parties to approa,l court by dismissing tle application hled for receiving r is always better to grant leave and receive the docume r the parties to adduced necessary evidence and rc necessary matter and to dispose of main proceedings such, it is needless to say that the orders, procer:, further delayed.
13. The Petitioners/Claimants id directed to file the PetiLion after deleting the Petitioners/Claimants. " ,rar;e, baSing I the opinion t,rnge by the ,entertain ing dcr Order VI ine the real rd necessary Liti,gation, L the revision octrments, it t s prermitting c-rpedite the 81'making in gs wrll be '1,:a- Copl of xt*rytr ,
5. The above findings of the Tribunal shows that the relief sought is amendment about not pressing the M.V'O'P' against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and permission to carry out amendment to the said effect to the cause title in the M'V'O'P' whereas, the impugned order is about the amendment leading to chalge in nature of the suit and receiving additional document papers. There was some error in passing the order' The relief sought and the order passed is not connected in any manner. The main order is liable to be set aside with a direction to the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, to dispose of the I.A.No.3O8 of 2025 a-fresh on merits.
6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of setting aside the impugned orde-r dated 04.ll '2025 directing the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, to dispose of I.A.No.308 of 2025 in M'V'O'P'No'l2l of 2O2l afresh on merits. There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand clqsed. -.- Sd/- K. MADHAVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /a
//TRUE COPYii
1. The Il Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sanga Reddy
2. One CC to Smt. A ANASUYA Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CD Copies To & SECTION OFFICER
HIGH COURT DATED:3111212025
ORDER
CRP.No.4684 ot 2O25 DISPOSINC OF THE CRP WITHOT,T COSTS := IE t oh t C) -t- ,f;'. / ) ) o -"- '.-;14 h(, ll -lr