Common Order

1. Since both the Civil Revision Petitions arise out of interlocutory proceedings in connected matters and involve similar questions for consideration, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. C.R.P.No.1487 of 2026 is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 06.05.2026 in I.A.No.71 of 2025 in O.S.No.10 of 2025 passed by learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda (for short “the trial Court”) whereby the learned Judge adjourned the said I.A.No.71 of 2025 to 12.06.2026 at the request of counsel for one of the respondents.

3. C.R.P.No.1488 of 2026 is filed aggrieved by the docket order dated 08.05.2026 in I.A.No.9 of 2026 in O.S.No.10 of 2026 passed by learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda whereby the learned Judge posted the advancement application vide I.A.No.9 of 2026 filed by the petitioner herein to 22.05.2026 for filing counters defeating the urgency made out by the petitioner herein.

4. Heard learned counsel for revision petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the continuation of the ex parte status quo order dated 21.04.2025 granted in I.A.No.71 of 2025 against the alienation of suit schedule properties is causing irreparable loss and hardship to the petitioner herein, as the substantial investments have been made by the petitioner in developing Schedule-B and D of the suit schedule properties including formation of layout after obtaining HMDA approval. Learned counsel further that the petitioner has also filed I.A.No.462 of 2026 seeking vacating the status quo on the ground of subsequent developments and changed circumstances.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent No.1/plaintiff and petitioner herein have already compromised the matter in respect of Schedule-B and D of the suit schedule properties and the same has been placed on record by filing I.A.No.417 of 2026. The learned counsel further submits that the memorandum of compromise and the averments made therein clearly show that the Schedule-B and D properties were converted from agricultural to non-agricultural use with formation of roads and demarcation of plots. Learned counsel further submits that the compromise petition filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff vide I.A.No.417 of 2026 itself acknowledges the said developments and seeks to restrict her claim to specific plots.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the substantial third-party interest has intervened and the respondent No.1/plaintiff herself has agreed to compromise; and continuation of status quo serves no equitable purpose. The balance of convenience tilts heavily in favour of the petitioner who has invested substantial sums and continues to face grave prejudice.

8. Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court without properly appreciating the prejudice likely to be caused to the petitioner, posted the advancement applications to 22.05.2026 for filing counter therein, which according to the learned counsel defeats the very purpose of filing the advancement applications. The learned counsel further submits that trial Court has erred in not disposing of I.A.No.71 of 2025, in which an ex parte order of status quo granted on 21.04.2025, despite lapse of more than twelve (12) months. Learned counsel contends that the failure to dispose of I.A.No.71 of 2025 is contrary to the statutory mandate under Order XXXIX Rule 3A CPC, which requires applications, where ex parte orders have been granted to be disposed of within thirty (30) days.

9. Learned counsel further contends that the decision of the trial Court in posting the advancement applications i.e., I.A.Nos.9 to 12 of 2026 for counters on 22.05.2026 is a procedural error, inasmuch as the trial Court failed to appreciate that, in applications seeking advancement, particularly where urgency is demonstrated as in the present case, there is no requirement to insist upon formal counters. Learned counsel submits that counters to advancement applications are an exercise in futility and that no prejudice can be shown by any respondent when the matter is heard earlier

10. Learned counsel submits that the trial Court erred in posting I.A.Nos.9 to 12 of 2026 (advancement applications) to 22.05.2026 for filing counters. The learned counsel contends that the said applications merely seek advancement of hearing dates and do not seek any substantive relief affecting the respondent’s rights. The respondent’s right to file counters to I.A.No.462 of 2026 (vacate stay petition) and I.A.No.417 of 2026 (compromise petition) remains fully protected.

               Learned counsel submits that counters can be filed and considered when the applications i.e., I.A.Nos.462 and 417 of 2026 are taken up for hearing and therefore, posting the advancement applications for counters unnecessarily delays adjudication of pending applications.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the revision petitioner would be adequately addressed if the trial Court is directed to take up I.A.No.71 of 2025, I.A.No.462 of 2026 and I.A.No.417 of 2026 on 22.05.2026 without insisting on counters in I.A.Nos.9 to 12 of 2026.

12. Having regard to the fact that the respondent No.1/plaintiff has entered into compromise with the petitioner herein and the fact that respondent Nos.2 to 9 are shown as not necessary parties to the present Civil Revision Petition, the learned Vacation Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda is directed to take up I.A.No.71 of 2025, I.A.No.462 of 2026 and I.A.No.417 of 2026 on 22.05.2026 without insisting upon counters in I.A.Nos.9 to 12 of 2026.

13. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.