THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY and

COMMON ORDER :

Since the issue arising out of the instant Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and decided by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr.Venkatram Reddy Mantur, learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No.3163 of 2025, Ms.Pratusha Bopanna, learned counsel for the petitioner in Civil Revision Petition No.3243 of 2025; and Mr. R.A. Achuthanand, learned counsel for the respondents in both the Revisions.

3. The instant Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 29.07.2025 in Interlocutory Application No.2288 of 2024 in O.S.No.298 of 2015 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad (for short, the ‘impugned order’)

4. The above I.A. was filed by respondent No.1 (plaintiff) herein under Section 148 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to condone the delay of thirty-one (31) days in complying with the order dated 05.11.2024 in I.A.Nos.471 and 472 of 2024 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

5. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the above application and condoned the delay of (31) days in complying with the order, dated 05.11.2024 in I.A.Nos.471 and 472 of 2024 passed by the X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad, by respondent No.1 (plaintiff).

6. Aggrieved, the instant Revisions have been filed by the petitioners.

Civil Revision Petition No.3163 of 2025 ::

7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (plaintiff) in Civil Revision Petition No.3163 of 2025 informed the Court that costs which were paid to the petitioner herein, and therefore submitted there is no scope left for adjudication in the instant Civil Revision Petition.

8. In view of above submission, the Civil Revision Petition No.3163 of 2025 stands dismissed. No costs.

concerned, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (plaintiff) submitted that in attempting to pay the costs as directed by the Trial Court in its impugned order, the petitioner refused to accept the costs on the ground of intention to challenge the order.

10. A bare perusal of the docket proceedings would go to show that the suit had been unnecessarily getting lingered on frivolous grounds without any strong reason. Though I.A.No.472 of 2024 in O.S.No.298 of 2015 was allowed with costs on 05.11.2024, the respondents herein had a right to file written statement, if any, and if they would have filed it by now the suit would have been proceeded substantially. The suit is one which was filed in the year 2015, i.e., more than 10 years ago, and still at this juncture, the respondents seem to be aggrieved of the impugned order, i.e., the order of extension of time that was granted by the Trial Court to respondent No.1 (plaintiff) for depositing the costs. Surprisingly, there was no challenge to the allowing of I.A.Nos.471 and 472 of 2024 in O.S.No.298 of 2015 on 05.11.2024 by the petitioners herein. It is only that portion where costs could not have been deposited by respondent No.1 (plaintiff) for whatever be the reason, that portion of the order stood allowed by the Trial Court vide the impugned order by granting further extension of time for depositing the costs.

11. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no strong case has been made out by the learned counsel for the petitioner calling for interference to the impugned order. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition No.3243 of 2025 fails and the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

12. This court further directs that, if the petitioners herein intend to file any consequential written statement, they may do so forthwith and without any further delay. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall proceed and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.

13. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these Revisions, shall stand closed.

___________________

P. SAM KOSHY, J Date : 10.10.2025 Ndr