IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2433 of 2023 Between:

Kumbam Ram Reddy, S/o Late Narsimha Reddy … Petitioner And Kumbam @ Jannapelli Bhanumathi, D/o Bal Bhagwan Reddy and 12 others.

...Respondents JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 20.08.2025 HON’BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers : Yes/No may be allowed to see the Judgment?

2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes/No

3. Whether her Lordship wishes to see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes/No ____________________________________

JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY HON'BLE JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2433 of 2023 % 20.08.2025 Between:

# Kumbam Ram Reddy, S/o Late Narsimha Reddy ..... Petitioner And Kumbam @ Jannapelli Bhanumathi, D/o Bal Bhagwan Reddy and 12 others ....Respondents < Gist:

> Head Note:

! Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, Senior counsel for Sri Narendar Jelli ^ Counsel for Respondents: Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy ? Cases Referred:

1. 2024 (1) ALD 175 (SC)

2. 2024 (1) ALD 797 (TS) (DB)

3. (2013) 12 SCC 649

4. 1997 (2) ALT 474 (SB)

5. AIR 2006 KERALA 135

6. AIR 2004 AP 91

7. 2014 (6) ALD 387

8. 2002 Suppl. (1) ALD 781

9. 2009 (3) ALD 23 (SC)

10. 2007 (4) ALT 677 11. 2005 (5) ALD 602

12. 2025 INSC 382

13. (2005) 7 SCC 748 14. 2004 (1) SCC 328 15. (2022) 4 SCC 181

16. 2025 SCC Online SC 985 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAKSHMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2433 of 2023 ORDER:

The order dated 04.04.2023 passed in IA.No.462 of 2019 in OS.No.49 of 1989 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhongir, is under challenge in the Revision Petition.

2. Heard Sri Jalli Kanakaiah, learned senior counsel appearing for Sri Narendar Jelli, learned counsel-on-record for revision petitioner, and Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The petitioner is defendant No.5, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are plaintiffs and respondent Nos.3 to 13 are defendants in the suit.

4. In nut-shell, the facts of the case, required for adjudication of the present Revision Petition, are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed suit in O.S.No.49 of 1989 for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The petitioner entered appearance, engaged a counsel and filed written statement on 22.12.1992, but, later, he was set ex parte on 06.03.1996 as he failed to appear before the Court and there was no representation on his behalf and the suit was decree ex parte on 21.02.1998 and a preliminary decree was passed. Subsequently, the matter was carried in appeal to this Court vide AS.No.1260 of 1998 by the legal heirs of defendant No.6, who purchased the land from respondent No.3, and this Court vide order dated 26.10.2018 dismissed the said Appeal. Later, respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs filed two applications- IA.No.170 of 2019 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to fix the boundaries and allot their share in the suit schedule properties, and I.A.No.173/2019 for passing of the final decree.

4.1. In the meanwhile, the petitioner/defendant No.5 filed Appeal-ASSR.No.36454 of 2019 before this Court for amendment of preliminary decree and the same was returned and consequent thereto, he approached the District Court and filed Appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, however, the said application was dismissed as the delay was inordinate. Again, the petitioner/defendant No.5 along with respondent No.13 herein/defendant No.7 had preferred appeal against the ex parte decree vide ASSR.No.131 of 2021 along with an application-IA.No.101 of 2019 to condone the delay of 8030 days in preferring the appeal and the said application was dismissed by the District Court on 01.12.2021. Challenging the said dismissal order, they filed CRP.No.59 of

2022 and this Court after appreciating the material on record, dismissed the CRP, vide order dated 21.09.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner along with respondent No.13 filed th