1 of 9 XII ADJ, Rangareddy. I.A.NO.104 of 23 in I.A.NO.16 of 2023 in OS.NO.220 of 2020. Dt.9.03.2023.
IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGAREDDY AT
L.B.Nagar.
Present:- Sri CH.PANCHAKSHARI, XII Addl., District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
Dated this the 09th day March, 2023
I.A. No. 16 of 2023 in
O.S.No. 220 of 2020
Between:
Rallagudem Rajavardhan Reddy … …. .....…. … Petitioner/Plaintiff
AND
Rallagudem Muthyam Reddy and others. … … Respondents/Defendants.
Thi s petition is coming before me on 08.03.2023 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M/s.Rakesh Sanghi , Advocate for the petitioner and Sri .M/s.M.Indrasena Reddy, Advocate for respondents no.1,4 to6, 8 to 10 and Sri .M/s.Deekonda Ravinder, Respondents/defendant no.3 and 7 and upon hearing both si des and perusing the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:
::O R D E R::
The petition is filed by the petitioner under Rule 109(2) of Civil Rules of
Practice praying the court to advance the date of hearing from 17-03-2023 to today or to any nearest date, in the interest of justice.
2.It is contended in the affidavit of the petitioner filed along with the petition that respondents successfully dragged the suit for 3 years by filing frivolous and vexatious applications one after the another only with an intention to delay the proceedings in the subject suit. Hence, prayed the court to advance the subject suit along with the interim applications from 17.3.2023 to today or to any nearest date for the speedy disposal of the suit and interim applications, in the interest of justice.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
2 of 9 XII ADJ, Rangareddy. I.A.NO.104 of 23 in I.A.NO.16 of 2023 in OS.NO.220 of 2020. Dt.9.03.2023.
3.Notice is given to the learned counsel for the respondents who filed their counters vehemently opposing the petitions. It is contended that the petitioner got filed another suit with his sister Smt.C.Madhavi vide O.S.NO.197 of 2020, as the parties are one and the same property being one and the same the said suit was also transferred to this court and the same is pending on the file of this court. Since two suit are pending, one suit can not be advanced . Further contended that the affidavit of the petitioner is silent for what reason the above suit needs to be advanced. With that prayed the court to dismiss the petition.
4.Heard on both sides. Perused the record and the documents filed by the parties to these petitions.
5.Point for determination:
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the relief as prayed for ? If so, to
what relief ?
6. POINT:- The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit filed for partition and separate possession against the respondents who are defendants in the suit.
As contended by the learned counsel for the respondents, they filed their written statements in the main suit which is coming up for conciliation.
7.The respondents no.3 and 7 who are defendants no.3 and 7 have filed an interlocutory Application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC, praying the court to reject the plaint. In which, the respondent/plaintiff has filed counter and it is coming up for the counter of other respondents/defendants.
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
3 of 9 XII ADJ, Rangareddy. I.A.NO.104 of 23 in I.A.NO.16 of 2023 in OS.NO.220 of 2020. Dt.9.03.2023.
8.It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only to delay the proceedings in the subject suit, the respondents have filed vexatious petitions and for speedy disposal of the suit proceedings and further submitted and prayed the court to direct the respondents to submit their arguments positively without taking any adjournments. With that prayed the court to advance the suit and interim application in the interest of justice.
9.The learned counsel for the respondents argued that there is no urgency pleaded by the petitioners and no reasons are assigned for seeking the relief and argued that without seeking advancement of another suit filed for partition of the same suit schedule property, this petition is not maintainable. Hence, prayed the court to dismiss the petition.
10. This court has gone through the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents. It is true that there is no sufficient reason shown by the petitioner for seeking an advancement of the suit and other interlocutory applications. It is also true that the petitioner have not sought the advancement of another suit filed for the same subject matter. Except pleading that the respondents are dragging the matter by filing vexatious petitions, no other reason has been shown by the petitioner.
11. In a petition for advancement, the petitioner must plead some urgency in the matter and if the matter is not adjourned, it is going to cause loss which can
Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
4 of 9 XII ADJ, Rangareddy. I.A.NO.104 of 23 in I.A.NO.16 of 2023 in OS.NO.220 of 2020. Dt.9.03.2023.
not be compensated afterwards. Filing of petitions by the parties to the suit, can not be restrained as it is the right of the parties to file petitions.
As there are no valid or sufficient grounds or reasons are shown by the petitioner, this court see no ground to advance the suit and interim applications which are posted to 17.3.2023. As such, this court holds that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief as prayed for. The point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
Directly typed by me on the laptop, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 9th day of March, 2023. Digitally signed by CH
PANCHAKSHARI
XII Addl., District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
- Nil -
::EXHIBITS FOR PETITIONER AND RESPONDNETS
:- Nil - .
XII Addl., District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar. ****