Common Order:

1. Since the issue arising in the instant two Civil Revision Petitions is identical and parties thereto are also same, therefore they are being heard and decided by this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr. Sujith Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner in both the Revisions; and Mr. H. Rajesh Kumar, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration.

3. For convenience, the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.1020 of 2026 are discussed hereunder.

4. Civil Revision Petition No.1020 of 2026 is filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the impugned Common Docket Order dated 17.02.2026 in I.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2024 in O.A.No.120 of 2018 passed by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, at Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the impugned order’).

5. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the I.A.s filed by the respondents and appointed an Advocate-Commissioner to conduct local inspection of the O.A. schedule property, to record its physical features, and to submit a report to the Tribunal on or before 31.03.2026.

6. Initially, the above two I.A.s, viz., I.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2024 in O.A.No.120 of 2018 are filed by the respondents herein under Rule 14(3) of the Telangana Endowments Tribunal Rules, 2020 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Trial Court to set aside the order of closure of Interlocutory Application No.635 of 2018, dated 03.05.2024, and to allow the application for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner and to reopen the case for the purpose of appointment of Advocate-Commissioner for conducting local investigation of the O.A. Schedule property.

7. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not been heard at all in I.A.No.635 of 2018; the two I.A.s which came up for consideration stood decided by the Trial Court vide the impugned Common Order and as a consequence of allowing the said two I.A.s, the Trial Court would only set aside the earlier order dated 03.05.2024 decided in I.A.No.635 of 2018 and would also reopen the proceedings in O.A.No.120 of 2018 for proper adjudication of I.A.No.635 of 2018.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the fact that petitioner had acceded to the order being passed in I.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2024 in O.A.No.120 of 2018 that by itself should not lead to a situation where the Trial Court should infer that petitioner herein had also agreed for allowing I.A.No.635 of 2018 as having heard the petitioner on the said I.A.

9. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, appearing on behalf of respondents, submitted that a plain reading of the impugned order would go to show that no prejudice as such had been caused to the petitioner in the course of allowing the said two I.A.s, and that all that the Advocate-Commissioner is going to do is to conduct a local inspection of the O.A. schedule property that which is reflected in the plaint; and therefore, it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

10. Learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, appearing on behalf of the respondents, does not dispute the fact that the hearing that was done on 17.07.2026 was only in I.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2024 in O.A.No.120 of 2018 and not on I.A.No.635 of 2018.

11. The said submission made by the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, appearing for the respondents, is a good ground for the impugned order to be set aside insofar as the I.A.No.635 of 2018 is concerned. Therefore, this Court is of the view that, to the aforesaid extent, the impugned common order is liable to be set aside. However, this Court makes it clear that allowing of I.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2024 in O.A.No.120 of 2018 by the Trial Court vide the impugned order is not being interfered with by this Court, and now that as a consequence of allowing of I.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2024 in O.A.No.120 of 2018, the I.A.No.635 of 2018 is only getting back restored, and the matter now needs to be heard on its own merits by the Trial Court.

12. Accordingly, the impugned common Docket Order dated 17.02.2026 insofar as I.A.Nos.218 and 219 of 2024 in O.A.No.120 of 2018 passed by the Telangana Endowments Tribunal, at Hyderabad, is concerned is hereby set aside only to the above extent. The matter now stands remitted to the Trial Court for deciding on I.A.No.635 of 2018 on its own merits in accordance with the pleadings that are brought by either parties on record.

13. Considering the fact that I.A.No.635 of 2018 is pending consideration before the Trial Court for the last 8 years, and it has been also informed across the Bench that the matter now stands fixed on 18.08.2026, and that the petitioner has not filed any counter to I.A.No.635 of 2018. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner herein shall file counter to I.A.No.635 of 2018 positively by the next date of hearing, failing which the petitioner’s right to file counter to the said I.A. shall stand forfeited. Thereafter, the Trial Court shall proceed and decide the I.A.No.635 of 2018 on its own merits and as expeditiously as possible.

14. With these observations, Civil Revision Petition No.1020 of 2026 stands disposed of. Consequently, Civil Revision Petition No.1023 of 2026 also stands disposed of on similar lines. No costs.

15. As a consequence, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.