IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No s. 4228 AND 4231OF 2025 Date:20-02-2026 CRP No.4228 of 2025 Between S.Nirmala …Petitioner and Lingala Ravindar Goud and another Respondents CRP No.4231 of 2025 Between Anugu Janardhan Reddy …Petitioner and S. Lingala Ravindar Goud and another Respondents T his Court passed the following

COMMON ORDER

Since the parties and the lis involved in these revisions are one and the same, these revisions are heard together and being disposed of by the common order.

2. Heard Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nrupen Guptha Billakanty, learned counsel for respondent No.1. There is endorsement in the cause title of revisions that 2^nd respondent is not necessary party.

3.These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. CRP No.4228 of 2025 is against the order dated 08.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.144 of 2022 in O.S.No.828 of 2016 and CRP No.4231 of 2025 is against the order dated 08.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.146 of 2022 in the said suit, by learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge – cum – Additional Family Court Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

4. 1^st respondent in both the CRPs is the plaintiff. He has filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioners – Defendant Nos.1 and 2 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16.02.2016 and also to declare the registered sale deed bearing document No.10890 of 2016 dated 07.05.2016 executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of Defendant No.2 as null and void. The same was decreed on

27.03.2019 and it is an ex parte decree.

5. Defendant No.1 has filed I.A.No.145 of 2022 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019. He has also filed I.A.No.144 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 52 days in filing I.A.No.145 of 2022 explaining the reasons for delay in the affidavit.

6. Likewise, Defendant No.2 has filed I.A.No.147 of 2022 under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019. He has also filed I.A.No.146 of 2022 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 61 days in filing I.A.No.147 of 2022 explaining the reasons for delay in the affidavit.

7. Vide orders both dated 08.10.2025, learned trial Court dismissed the condone delay petitions vide I.A.Nos.144 and 146 of 2025. Vide order dated 15.11.2025, learned trial Court closed the petitions vide I.A.Nos.145 of 2022 and 147 of 2022 to set aside the exparte decree dated 27.03.2019 holding that since I.A.Nos.144 and 146 of 2022 were dismissed, the same were also closed. Challenging the said orders dated 08.10.2025 in I.A.Nos.144 and 146 of 2022 passed by the learned trial Court, the petitioners herein filed the present revisions.

8. As discussed supra, on dismissal of condone delay petitions vide orders both dated 08.10.2025, the petitions to set aside the ex parte decree were closed vide orders both dated 15.11.2025. Thus, the orders dated 15.11.2025 are merged with the orders dated 08.10.2025. Therefore, the petitioners have to prefer an appeal challenging the ex parte decree dated 27.03.2019 in O.S.No.828 of 2016. The said principle was also laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Koushik Mutually Aided Cooperative Society vs. Ameena Begum, (2023) INSC 1065 The said principle is also referred by this Court in Baltha Lingaiah vs. Boda Ramachandra Reddy

9. Sri Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the trial Court should have either rejected the petitions filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC or dismissed the same, on dismissal of the condone delay petitions. But, in the present case, trial

2 2025 Law Suit (TS) 96

Court closed the applications filed by the petitioners to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. Therefore, the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment is not applicabl