Dr. Sunnam Srinivas Reddy

Page No.1 of 9

Date: 12/12/2025

SC No.38 of 2020

PSJ, VKB.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Friday, this the 12th day of December, 2025

PRESENT: Dr.S.SRINIVAS REDDY,

Principal Sessions Judge,

Vikarabad District.

SC No. 38 of 2020

1Name of the complainantThe State through P.S. Peddemul.

2Cr. No. 119 of 2018 3Name & description of the Pittala Sathyaiah S/o. Ramulu, aged about 45 accused. years, Occ: Contractor, R/o. Polepally village (Ramnagar), Chinthapally Mandal, Nalgonda District.

4Offences under Sections304-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

5Prosecution conducted byPublic Prosecutor.

6Defence conducted bySri K. Madhava Reddy, Advocate.

7Plea of the accusedNot guilty.

8Finding of the Court Found not guilty

In the result, the accused is found not guilty 9Sentence or order of the for the offences punishable under section 304-A Court of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act and he is accordingly acquitted

Page No.2 of 9

Date: 12/12/2025

SC No.38 of 2020

PSJ, VKB.

under section 235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months from today. The unmarked case property if, any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The interim custody of the tractor bearing No.AP 24 T 3574 which is granted to its owner by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tandur in

Crl.MP No.253 of 2018 on 03.11.2018 is hereby

made absolute.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri K. Madhava Reddy, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Circle Inspector of Police of Tandur Rural Circle of Vikarabad District has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 304-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act in Crime No.119 of 2018 of PS Peddemul alleging that the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased K. Krishna on 09.09.2018 on 1300 hours at the outskirts of

Gotlapally Village of Peddemul Mandal. The averments of the charge sheeet shorn of unnecessary details are shown as under:

a) The defacto complainant/LW1/Kanavoni Shekar is the resident of Athkur

Village of Peddemul Mandal, Vikarabad District and N/o. Polepally (Ramnagar)

Village of Chinthapally Mandal, Nalgonda District and neighbor of the deceased.

The accused is native of Polepally (Ramnagar) village of Chinthapally Mandal,

Nalgonda District, who took the work of laying the electric polls to one power plant to another power plant, in order to complete the work, the accused engaged

Page No.3 of 9

Date: 12/12/2025

SC No.38 of 2020

PSJ, VKB.

LW1 and his brother/deceased who belonged to the same village. On 09.09.2018 at about 1400 hours the accused ordered LW1 and deceased to make 5 trenches for erecting the poles with the help of compressor and Gelatin sticks, Detonators and accordingly they made five trenches by using the explosives, at the end of completing the work the deceased started to wrap the loose wire which was used for blasting the trenches, that no one noticed that the loose wire came in contact with live existing electrical wire, while the deceased was taking that wire to wrap, then suddenly he got electrocution and fell on the ground, that on noticing it,

LW1 tried to rescue him from the electrical shock with the help of a stick, and made efforts by pumping on the chest to bring back him in consciousness but the deceased succumbed to electrical shock, due to negligent acts of the accused who could not take any precautionary measures before making trenches even he knows that there was electrical power supply and it will have threat to the human life. Further, the accused unlawfully and maliciously has in his possession of the explosive substances i.e., Detonators and Gelatin Sticks to make the trenches by blasting the rocks which were obstructing to their work. Thus, the acts of the accused constitute the offences punishable under section 304A IPC, Sections 3 & 4 of Explosives and Substances Act, 1908. Hence, the charge sheet.

2. The case was taken cognizance by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Tandur and after compliance of requirements under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., by order dated 02.11.2020 committed the case to this Court under section 209 (d) of Criminal Procedure Code vide PRC No.12 of 2020. The same was taken on file as S.C. No.38 of 2020 for disposal according to law.

3. The record depicts that upon the presence of the accused before this court and on hearing both sides, charges were framed for the offences under Sections 304-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act against the

Page No.4 of 9

Date: 12/12/2025

SC No.38 of 2020

PSJ, VKB.

accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs. 1 to 3 were got examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were got marked.

5. The record discloses that after completion of examination of witnesses on behalf of prosecution, on appearance of the accused, he was examined under

Section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating evidence found against him in the prosecution evidence for which he denied the same and stated that he has no defence evidence.

6. Heard the learned public prosecutor on behalf of the prosecution and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the material on record.

7. In the light of the submissions, the following points would emerge for consideration, namely:

1) Whether the prosecution has established that the accused

by his acts has caused the death of the deceased K. Krishna

by rashly and negligently compressed the rocks by fixing the

electrical wire without taking any precautions on 09.09.2018

at about 1300 hours at the outskirts of Gotlapally Village of

Peddemul Mandal?

2) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the offences punishable under sections 304-A of

IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908

beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) To what relief?

Page No.5 of 9

Date: 12/12/2025

SC No.38 of 2020

PSJ, VKB.

8. Point Nos.1 and 2: It is settled law that in a criminal trial, the burden of proving everything essential to establish the charge against the accused always rests on the prosecution and there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused until the contrary is proved as criminality is not to be presumed, subject of course to some statutory exceptions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a decision reported in BHAGWAN JAGANNATH MARKAD & ORS Vs. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA {2017 (1) ALT(Crl) 169} in regard to the burden of proof on the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused, has heldas under:

"It is accepted principle of criminal jurisprudence that the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and the accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty. The prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt is one which occurs to a prudent and reasonable man."

9. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid legal principles, it now required to be ascertained by scrutinizing the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution as to whether it has established and proved its case against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive

Substances Act, warranting his conviction for the same.

10. The testimony of PW1/Kanavoni Shekar before this court discloses that the accused is not responsible for the death of the deceased as PW1 has stated that the deceased came in contact with electric wire and died. PW2/Kanavoni Pushpalatha who is the wife of the deceased has also stated in her chief examination before this court that her husband while working as a labour at Athkur Village in the compression blast unit died while coming in contract with the electric wire and that the accused is not responsible for the death of her husband. PWs.1 and 2

Page No.6 of 9

Date: 12/12/2025

SC No.38 of 2020

PSJ, VKB.

though are cross-examined by the public prosecutor after declaring them as hostile, but nothing is elicited from their cross-examination to suggest that the deceased has died due to the rash and negligent act of the accused. Further, PW1 who lodged the police report under Ex.P4 on 09.09.2018 has only admitted his signature marked as Ex.P1 on the report dated 09.09.2018 and denied his 161

Cr.PC statement under Ex.P2, so also PW2 as she also denied Ex.P3 which is stated to be her 161 Cr.PC statement in which the rashness and negligence is attributed to the accused for the death of the deceased.

11. PW3/D. Jalander Reddy is the CI of Police of Tandur Rural Circle at the relevant point of time. He stated in his chief examination as under:

“On 9.9.2018 at 1700 hours LW11/V. Suresh, SI of police, PS Peddemul received Ex.P4 report from PW1 on which basis he registered a case in Cr.No.119 of 2018 under sections 304-A of IPC and under sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act and issued Ex.P5 FIR. He examined and recorded the statement of PW1, visited the scene of offence and conducted the scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch under Ex.P6 in the presence of LW6/Bantu Balappa and LW7/Lonka Ramulu and seized 120 jelatine sticks, 35 detonators, loose wire about 50 mts and one compressor fitted tractor. The dead body of the deceased K. Krishna was shifted to Government Hospital, Tandur and LW11 examined and recorded the statements of PW2 and LWs 3 to 5 namely K. Narsimha, K. Bharatamma and P.Savitri. The inquest over the dead body of the deceased was also conducted by LW11 in the presence of LW8 and LW9 N. Ramulu and B.Shivakumar under Ex.P7 inquest panchanama. The dead body was subjected to PME which is conducted by LW10/Dr. M.Srinivas, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tandur and he issued Ex.P8

Page No.7 of 9

Date: 12/12/2025

SC No.38 of 2020

PSJ, VKB.

PME report. The accused is arrested on 25.9.2018 and got him remanded to judicial custody. The tractor was handed over to the accused towards interim custody on 8.3.2019 and the remaining case property was defused. The FSL report is also obtained under Ex.P9. After completing the investigation I filed the charge sheet.”

12. The public prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW3/Kanamoni

Narsimha (Circumstantial witness and father of the deceased), LW4/Smt.

Kanamoni Bharatthamma (Circumstantial witness and mother of the deceased),

LW5/Smt. Palamoni Savithri (Circumstantial witness and sister of the deceased),

LW6/Bantu Balappa (Panch for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and rough sketch), LW7/Lonka Ramulu (Panch for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and rough sketch), LW8/Nayakoni Ramulu (Panch for inquest),

LW9/Bantu Shiva Kumar (Panch for inquest), LW10/Dr. M. Srinivas (Held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME report) and LW11/V.

Suresh (First IO).

13. On a careful perusal of the testimony of the material witnesses who are examined as PWs.1 and 2, it is evident that none of them has attributed the death of the deceased K. Krishna due to electrocution on account of the rash and negligent acts of the accused in not taking proper precautions at the blast site in the outskirts of Gotlapally Village of Peddemul Mandal. Therefore, since the defacto complainant who is shown as an eye witness for the incident has not supported the case of the prosecution against the accused and as the wife of the deceased examined as PW2 also did not hold the accused responsible for the death of her husband and in the absence of any other acceptable and connecting material on record proving the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against

Page No.8 of 9

Date: 12/12/2025

SC No.38 of 2020

PSJ, VKB.

him, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under sections 304-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal for the said charges. These points are answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:- In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Explosive

Substances Act and he is accordingly acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.PC.

The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six (6) months from today. The unmarked case property if, any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The interim custody of the tractor bearing

No.AP 24 T 3574 which is granted to its owner by the Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Tandur in Crl.MP No.253 of 2018 on 03.11.2018 is hereby made absolute.

Dictated partly to the Stenographer Grade – III, transcribed by him and partly typed,

corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12 th day of December, 2025.

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:-

PW-1: Kanavoni Shekar -Nil- PW-2: Kanavoni Pushpalatha PW-3: D. Jalander Reddy.

Page No.9 of 9

Date: 12/12/2025

SC No.38 of 2020

PSJ, VKB.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution: Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on the report dated 09.09.2018. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1. Ex.P3: 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2. Ex.P4: Complaint. Ex.P5: FIR. Ex.P6: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch. Ex.P7: Inquest panchanama. Ex.P8: PME report. Ex.P9: FSL report.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defence: -Nil-

MOs. marked on behalf of the prosecution: -Nil-

PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Page 1 of 5 GWOP No. 8 of 2025 Date: 10-12-2025 PDJ,VKB.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Wednesday, this the 10th day of December, 2025.

PRESENT: Dr.S.SRINIVAS REDDY,

Principal District Judge,

Vikarabad District.

GWOP No. 8 of 2025

BETWEEN:-

Smt. Buchigari Nandini W/o. Late Buchigari Suresh, aged about 35 years, Occ: Hosuehold, R/o. H.No.4-91, Kyasaram Village, Patancher Mandal, Sangareddy District – 502307.

In the matter of minor:

Sri Meenapally Nikhil S/o. Late M. Suresh, aged about 16 years, Occ: Student, R/o. H.No.4-91, Kyasaram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy District – 502307.

(Petitioner No.2 is minor under the care and custody of his natural mother i.e., petitioner No.1) …Petitioners.

AND

To who so ever it may concern …Respondent.

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri S. Srinu and Sri V. Tulsiram, advocates for the Petitioners and no objections received after issuing paper publication against Respondent/who so ever it may concern, and upon hearing and upon perusal of the record, this Court made the following:-

Page 2 of 5 GWOP No. 8 of 2025 Date: 10-12-2025 PDJ,VKB.

O R D E R

1. This GWOP is filed under section 29 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 seeking permission to the 1st petitioner to alienate the petition schedule property to meet the future educational expenses and well-being expenses of the 2nd petitioner Meenapally Nikhil who is her minor son aged about 16 years.

2. The schedule of property is shown as under:

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

All that part and parcel of the agricultural land bearing Sy.No.80/2/2/1, admeasuring Ac.00-1000 gts., situated at Yavapur Village, Nawabpet Mandal, Vikarabad District bounded by:-

East : Land belongs K. Suri Babu West : Land belongs M. Manaiah. North : Land belongs to M. Pochaiah. South : Land belongs to M. Pochaiah.

3. The averments of the petition and the testimony of the petitioner No.1 as

PW1 makes it evident that her husband M. Suresh has died on 28.09.2008, the 2nd petitioner is their son, after the death of her husband, the paternal grandfather of the petitioner No.2 (father of the husband of petitioner No.1) executed the registered sale deed under the original of Ex.A1 in favour of the 2nd petitioner in respect of the petition schedule property by showing the petitioner No.1/PW1 as his guardian. It is the further case of PW1 that for the purpose of providing higher education to her son, as she is not having any adverse interest, she may be permitted to sell the petition schedule property.

Page 3 of 5 GWOP No. 8 of 2025 Date: 10-12-2025 PDJ,VKB.

a) The petitioner No.1/PW1 has filed her Aadhar card under Ex.A2 and the

Aadhar card of the 2nd petitioner under Ex.A3 apart from Exs.A4 and A5 which pertain to the petition schedule property as mentioned in ExA1 which are the Bhubharathi document and encumbrance of the property under Ex.A1, respectively. She has also filed Ex.A6 consisting of six fee receipts of the 2nd petitioner to show that he is studying in Gatik Junior College, Nandigama

Village, Patancheruvu of Hyderabad.

4. On a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record and as no objections are received when paper publication is ordered against all concerned, this court is of the view that the petitioner/PW1 being the natural mother of her minor son Meenapally Nikhil/Petitioner No.2 has no adverse interest with that of the minor and the petition schedule property which is in the name of the minor as per Ex.A1 can be permitted to be alienated for the purpose of meeting educational and future well being of the minor whose interest is of paramount consideration and this court has no reason to disbelieve the assertion of PW1 in this regard in support of her claim for the relief claimed in this petition. Hence, this petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for.

5. In the result, this petition is allowed by permitting the petitioner No.1 who is the natural mother of the minor Meenapally Nikhil/petitioner No.2 in whose name the petition schedule property is registered, to sell the petition schedule property for the purpose of meeting the educational and future welfare expenses of the minor Meenapally Nikhil/petitioner No.2 on the following terms and conditions:

Page 4 of 5 GWOP No. 8 of 2025 Date: 10-12-2025 PDJ,VKB.

1. The petitioner No.1 is permitted to alienate the petition schedule property for highest price within three months from today.

2. The petitioner No.1 shall not alienate the property for lesser value than the prevailing market value and should make efforts to get maximum price for the said property.

3. The petitioner No.1 shall deposit 20% of the total sale consideration of the petition schedule property in this court within a week from the date of the receipt of the sale proceeds, and on such deposit the said amount shall be invested in any Nationalized bank in fixed deposit till her minor son Meenapally Nikhil/petitioner No.2 attains majority. The petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest on the amount deposited once in six months, if required, to meet the educational and other necessities of the minor son Meenapally Nikhil/petitioner

No.2.

4. The petitioner No.1 after a period of one year may seek permission of this court if required, for pre-mature withdrawal of the deposit amount to meet the educational or other necessities of the minor son Meenapally

Nikhil/petitioner No.2.

5. The Sub-registrar concerned shall not release registered document after registration of the petition schedule property in favour of the prospective purchaser, unless a certificate from this court to the effect that the 20% sale consideration amount received is deposited into the court as ordered above, is filed before him.

Page 5 of 5 GWOP No. 8 of 2025 Date: 10-12-2025 PDJ,VKB.

6. The petitioner No.1 shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs which shall remain in force for a period of three years after her minor son Meenapally Nikhil/petitioner No.2 attains majority. In the circumstances no costs.

Dictated partly to the Stenographer Grade – III, transcribed by him, partly typed, corrected and

pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 10 th day of December, 2025.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER: FOR RESPONDENT

PW1: Smt. Buchigari Nandini. -Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of the Petitioners:

Ex.A1: CC of sale deed document No.650/2025, dated 24.03.2025. Ex.A2: Original Aadhar card of petitioner No.1. Ex.A3: original Aadhar card of petitioner No.2. Ex.A4: Mee Seva Bhu Bharathi pahani obtained through online. Ex.A5: Mee Seva encumbrance certificate. Ex.A6: Fee receipt issued by the college authorities.

Documents marked on behalf of the Respondent: -Nil-

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT

PRESENT: DR. S. SRINIVAS REDDY,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Thursday, this the 18th day of December, 2025.

Tr.O.P.No.03 of 2025

Between: Thammali Ramesh S/o. Late Ramulu, Aged about 5 years, occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. 13-1-57/2/23, Avanthi Nagar Thota, AGI Glass Factory Road, Motinagar, Medchal-Malkajgiri Dist – 00 114. … Petitioner

AND

1. Thammali Jayamma W/o. T. Srinivas, Aged about 44 years, occ: Household,

2. Tammali Srinivas S/o. T. Shivappa, Aged about 51 years, occ: Agriculture,

3. Tammali Amarnath S/o. T. Srinivas, Aged about 29 years, occ: Student, All are R/o. 5-22, Satwar Village, Zaheerabad Mandal, Sanga Reddy – 502 221.

4. Tahasildar, Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District.

5. All Concerned. … Respondents

This petition is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Shankar Amshala, Advocate for the petitioner and of Sri P. Goverdhan Reddy, Advocate for the respondent Nos. to 3, respondent No4 set exparte and upon hearing both sides and perusal of material on record, this court passed the following:

O R D E R

1.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel

for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused their counter.

2.The respondent No.4 is set exparte.

3.This Transfer OP is filed by the petitioner seeking to transfer OS.No.

751 of 2022 pending on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge,

Vikarabad to the court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad for being clubbed and tried along with OS.No.310 of 2023 which is pending on the file of Prl.

Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad.

4.OS.No.751 of 2022 is filed by the petitioner as the plaintiff on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad seeking the relief of declaration to declare him as the legal heir of Late Thammali Ramulu who died on 12.9.2022 intestate and to declare that he is the owner of the suit schedule land of Ac.4-03 gts in Sy.No.137/A/2/1/1/1 situated at Amardikurdu Village of

Mominpet Mandal. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein are shown as the defendants in the said suit.

5.OS.No.310 of 2023 is also filed by the petitioner herein as plaintiff against these respondent Nos.1 to 3 as defendant Nos. 1 to 3 seeking the relief of declaration to declare him as the owner of an extent of Ac.5-08 gts in Sy.No.137/A (new sy.No.137/A/2) situated at Amardikurdu Village of

Mominpet Mandal, in accordance with the “Oppanda Patram” dated 16.12.2007 and also to declare the registered gift deed No.781 of 2020, sale deed No.782 of 2020 and registered gift deed No.783 of 2020 in favour of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 therein as not binding on him.

6.The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in their counter filed in this petition have contended that both these cases are different, reliefs are also different and the parties and schedule of property are also not same and as such sought for dismissal of this petition.

7.The claim of the petitioner as plaintiff in the above two suits is that he is the adopted son of Thammali Ramulu and as such he is entitled for the reliefs claimed therein. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who are the defendants in both the suits have claimed that the suit lands are different and the reliefs are also different and therefore both these suits cannot be clubbed.

8.Having regard to the submissions of both sides and as the reliefs in both these suits is for declaration which is sought for by the plaintiff against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 who are common in these two suits and as the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff is on the basis of his adoption by late

Thammali Ramulu and as the respondent Nos.1 to 3/defendant Nos.1 to 3 in these two suits are disputing the claim of the petitioner/plaintiff in this regard, this court is of the view that in the interest of justice, both the suits have to be tried and disposed of jointly by one court to avoid conflicting decisions since the relationship of the petitioner/plaintiff with Thammali

Ramulu also would be an issue that falls for consideration in OS.No.310 of 2023. Therefore, to avoid conflicting decisions and for the convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice and as no prejudice would cause to the defendant Nos.1 to 3 in OS.No.751 of 2022 if the relief sought for in this

TROP is granted, this petition deserves to be allowed as prayed for.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed by withdrawing OS.No.751 of 2022 from the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad and the said suit is transferred to the court of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad for being clubbed along with OS.No.310 of 2023 for conducting joint trial and for adjudication of the issues on merits and to avoid conflicting decisions. The I

Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad is directed to send the entire suit

record in OS.No. 751 of 2022 duly indexed to the court of the Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Vikarabad court within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances, no costs.

Typed to dictated to typist and transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 18th day of December,

2025.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Copy to:

1. The Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad.

2. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vikarabad

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT

PRESENT: DR. S. SRINIVAS REDDY,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT.

Dated this the 10th day of December, 2025.

D.O.P.No.9 OF 2025

Between:

1. Abdul Khaleel @ Akhil S/o. Khaja Miya, Aged about 36 years, occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.4-1-555, Ward No.28, Alampally, Vikarabad Municipality and Dist.

2. Smt. P. Mani Deepika W/o. Abdul Khaleel @ Akhil, Aged about 33 years, occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o.H.No.44-16, Chawdary Colony, Vikarabad Municipality and Dist.

.... Petitoners.

CLAIM: THIS PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 28 OF SPECIAL MARRIAGE ACT 1954. * * * *

This petition is coming on this day before me and of Sri K. Madhava Reddy, Advocate, counsel for petitioners and having stood over for consideration, this court made the following:

DOCKET ORDER DATED: 10-12-2025

Heard the counsel for petitioners. This petition is dismissed in view of the not press endorsement made by counsel for petitioners. No costs.

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

VIKARABAD DISTRICT