IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT YDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CRP.No.3913 of 2025 Date:23.01.2026 Between:

Ms.Shobha Veta and another … Petitioners And The Tahsildar/Mandal Revenue Officer, Thirumalgherry Mandal, Secunderabad. …Respondent

ORDER

:

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed assailing the docket order dated 23.09.2025 whereby the suit which the petitioners had filed has been returned by the trial Court.

2. A perusal of the docket order which has been filed would go to show that the petitioners-plaintiffs had filed suit seeking for the following reliefs:

“1. Declaring Veta Praful Kumar as presumed to be dead in terms of Section 111 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) and Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act for missing past 35 years.

2. Declaring the plaintiffs as sole surviving legal heirs and successors of Veta Praful Kumar;

3. and pass such other relief(s) which the Plaintiffs are entitled for, in the interest of justice.”

3. The suit was not registered that was at SR stage pending vide OSSR.No.2650/2025. After a couple of hearings, the learned trial Court has returned the suit on the ground that the petitioners- plaintiffs’ have not been able to file cogent material and proof in respect of the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 being missing and not traceable for more than 30 years. In the absence of any proof, suit was returned.

4. At the outset, this Court is of the considered opinion that the view expressed by the trial Court at SR stage while returning of the suit in fact amounts to deciding the suit itself on merits or without permitting the petitioners even to adduce evidence in support of their contention. This Court also finds force in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the said findings could have been arrived at only after appreciating the evidence that the petitioners would have adduced before the trial Court.

5. Another aspect which needs to be appreciated is the contention of the petitioners-plaintiffs in the plaint that husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 being not traceable for the last more than 30 years, the petitioners-plaintiffs are not in a position to state whether the said person is alive or not. Another aspect which has been brought to the notice of the Court is that on the same stand there was a partition suit filed within the family members, where the petitioners were the plaintiffs and said partition suit stood allowed in their favour. There again the mother of the so-called missing person and other siblings of missing person who were defendants in the said suit for partition have also acceded to the fact that the petitioner No.1’s husband and father of petitioner No.2 has gone missing and is not traceable for the last 30 years.

6. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, the docket order dated 23.09.2025 to the extent of returning of the suit is set aside and quashed and the petitioners-plaintiff are permitted to resubmit the suit before the concerned Court. The concerned Court in turn is directed to register the same and proceed on the suit and only after due appreciation of the evidence and other materials on record take an appropriate decision strictly in accordance with law and on its own merits and dispose of the suit accordingly.

7. The Civil Revision Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J

23.01.2026

nvl