IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

I,,IONDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry TWO

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1800 OF 2021

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of India, against the Order in LA.No.357 of 2016 in O.S.No.112 of 20'15 dated 20.10.2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada,

Between:

Jangiti Babu, S/o Mallaiah,Aged. 43 years, Occ. Business, Fyo H.No.8-5-39/4/G, Sainagar, Vemulawada Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District, presently Rajanna Siricilla District.

...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DEFENDANT NO.2

AND

• ¹ Marupaka Ramulu, S/o. Veeraiah. Aged 57 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2- 3, Yengal Village, Chandurthi Mandal, Karimnagar Diskict, presently Rajanna Siricilla District. ..RespondenuRespondenvPlaintiff
• l,4arpaka Lachamma @ Lachawa, W/o. Lachaiah,Aged 61 years, Occ. Agriculiure, R/o. Yengal Village, Chandurthi Mandal, Karimnagar District, presently Rajanna Siricilla District. 2.
• Votarikari Bhoomesh, S/o. Narayana,Aged.39 years, Occ. Business,R/o. H.No. 2-2-1 1, Gandhinagar, Chandurthi Mandal,Vemulawada Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District, presently Rajanna Siricilla District. 3

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS NO.1 ND 3

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant inlerim stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.112 of 2015 on the file of the Honorable Junior Civil Judge, Vemulawada, pending disposal of the above revision petition in the interest of justice and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:SRl. S SURENDER REDDY

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : T SURYA SATISH

The Court made the following: OROER

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

C.R.P. No. 18OO of 2O2l

ORDER:

Both sides counsel present.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. This Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the dismissal orders passed in I.A.No.357 of 2016 dated 20.10.2O21 in O.S.No. 1 12 of 2015.

4. Infact an application is filed before the trial court for rejection of plaint under order 7 Ru1e. 11(d) r/w section 151 of CPC. But the trial court under misconception framed an issue whether plaintiff is entitled to receive the documents as praVq6| for and allowed the application.

For rejection of the complaint the court passed as follows:

I I

5. Nout the point that anses for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner/ plaintilf is entitled for receiue doanment as praaed for?

6. On perusal of the petition, it shouts that this petition is filed U/ O.7.Rttle 11(d) of CPC is under limitation uthich is a m*ed

question of fact ond law and can only be addressed duing the course of tial, as one o/ tfte issues.

7. In the result, this petition is dismissed.

8. In view of the above, the order of the trial court is set aside and the matter is to be disposed by duly giving opportunity to both sides. Accordingly CRP is ordered.

9. Civil Revision Petition is allowed and remanded. No order as to costs. s

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed

//TRUE COPY//

SD/.M.MANJUIA DEPUTY REGISTNAR ^,/ .!-,, SEGTION OFFIGER

{f

¹. The Junior Civil Judge at Vemulavada

2. One CC to SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to SRl. T SURYA SATISH Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies

5. One Spare Copy

SB J

To,

\

HIGH COURT

DATED:01/08/2022

ORDER

CRP.No.1800 of 2021

ALLOWED AND REMANDED THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION