G. Umashankar v. P. Ravinder Reddy

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT LE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY THE HONOU lA NO: 1 OF iN CIVIL REVISION PE N NO: 2273 OF 2024 Between:

G. Umashankar, S/o Late G. Vittalaiah ...PETITIONER

1. P. Ravinder Reddy, S/o P. Narasimha Reddy

2. Mr. Atul @ Khadar, Sio Not known to the petitioner

3. Mr. Sudhanidhi, S/o Not known to the petitioner . ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 148 R/VV 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the Letter daled02-12-2O25 vide Dis No. 2198 of 2025, addressed by the ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge Cum Xlll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, at Rajendranagar and forwarded by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, vide Dis No. 71 14lAdmn/2025, dated 03-1 1-2025, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to extend the time granted on 30-08-2024 in CRP No. 2273 of 2024 for a further period of three months for dispose of lA No. 444 of 2022 in OS No. 31 of 2010 on the file of the ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge Cum Xlll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga. Reddy District, at Rajend ranagar.

This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Letter dated 02-122O25 vide Dis No. 2198 of 2025, addressed by the ll Addl. Junior Civil Judge Cum Xlll Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ranga Reddy District, at Rajendranagar and forwarded by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B. Nagar, vide Dis No. 71 1 4/Admn 12025, daled O3-1 1 -2025 i

--7 The Court made the following: ORDER On a perusal of the correspondence given by the trial Court, it appears that the instant letter has been moved by the trial Court seeking for extension of time for disposal of 1.A.No.444 of 2022 in O.S.No.31 of 2010. For the reasons stated in the letter, the trial Court has tried to give some explanation for having not concluded the trial within an outer limit of one year. Even the extension period sought for is also for disposal of the [A filed under Order XXXIX Rules I & 2 CPC, which again was not a mandate of the Court while deciding of the CRP. This Court while disposing of the CRRP had directed very suit itself i.e., O.S.No.31 of 2O1O to be decided at the earliest. Surprisingly, lA filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC till date has not been decided.

The manner in which the progress is being made is not appreciable. Once when there is a direction by the High Court for expeditious completion of the trial, it becomes incumbent upon the Presiding Officer concerned to take up the matter on priority basis referring to the direction of the High Court and ensure that all efforts are made for compliance of the High Court's direction. ln the instant case, the lA itself till date has not been effectively decided against the order of deciding the suit itself on merits. Without further entering upon the progress of the trial Court, at this juncture, we grant a further extension to the trial Court concerned to ensure compliance of the directiop given in C.R.P.No.2273 of 2024 dated 30.08.

2024 insofar as deciding the very suit itself at the earliest, preferably within a further period of six months starting from today.

l.A.No.1 of 2025 is accordingly allowed.

sd/- MoHD. ISMAIL DEPUry REG //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1.

2.

3. ;5*f53i;3fsi$:x[t:l;*1thz:fl#r:::;:ff :r1,:ffi '

HIGH COURT DATED: 09/0112026 THE S& t i) II :

2 2 JAii lt?i J, * *-

ORDER

lA NO: 1 OF 2026 IN CRP.No.2273 of 2024 EXTENSION e2)1\e'6