Telangana High Court
CRP/3158/2023 of M/s. Dhuwalia Plastics a partnership firm Vs H.Venkatesh on 29 December 2023
COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERAAAD FRIDAY , THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No : 3158 0F 2023 Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrbved by the Order dated 11-09-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYOERAAAD
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3158 0F 2023
Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia aggrbved bythe Order dated 11-09-2023 in |.A.No.297 ot [2O23 ][in ][A.S.No. ][14 ][of2023 ][on the]file of the Court of the ll Additional District and Sessions [Judge, ][Medchal]Malkajgiri District.
Between:
M/s. Dhuwalia Plastics a [partnership ]firm, Rep. by its [managing ][partner]Sri.D.Chandra Mohan, S/o D.Leeladhar, aged [about ][48 ][years, ][Occ. ][Business' ][Rl/o]Flat No.G-6, AK Enclave, Phase-2, Road No.-3, [Banjarahills, ][Khariatabad,]Hyderabad-500 034
PETITIONER/ Appellant
AND
1. H.Venkatesh, S/o [Harihar Rao Aged. 69 years, Occ. Retired Employee R/o]Hat No.502 Kalyani Residency, [Nimboliadda, Hyderabad]Hat No.502 Kalyani Residency, [Nimboliadda, Hyderabad]
2. Mr.Ajay Kumar, S/o Maktal Shyam [Sundar Aged about 47 ][years,.]Occ.ilusiness. Fyo. Flat No.107, Satya [Apartments Road No.6, Himayatnagar,]HyderabadOcc.ilusiness. Fyo. Flat No.107, Satya [Apartments Road No.6, Himayatnagar,]Hyderabad
3. Mrs.Rajini Devi, S/o.Sri Shiva [Ramq Krishna Aged about ][7s_years,]Occ.Retired teacher RJo. [H.No.41 ][3ISRT, ][S. ][R.Nagar, Hyderabad]Occ.Retired teacher RJo. [H.No.41 ][3ISRT, ][S. ][R.Nagar, Hyderabad]
4. Smt.Ambica Srivatsav, [W/o S.K.Srivatsav Aged ][about ][75 ][years, Occ. Retired]teacher Fyo. H.No.5-8-45, Chiragali Lane, [Hyderabad]teacher Fyo. H.No.5-8-45, Chiragali Lane, [Hyderabad]
5. Sri.Krishna Vishwanath, [S/o Late Krishna Pillai Aged about 70 years, ][Occ.]Employee R/o H-No.1-17411 , [Fathenagar, Hyderabad.]Employee R/o H-No.1-17411 , [Fathenagar, Hyderabad.]
(Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not neoessary [parties ]to-this [petition, profarma]farti6s [as suit ][was ][not ][pressed ageinst RR 4 & ][5 ][gqj ][sqit is ][dismissed]bgainstRR2 & 3 ) ...RESPONDENTS/Respondents IANO: 1 OF 2o23
Petition under Section [151 ]CPC [praying ][that ][in the circumstances stated ][in]the affidavit filed in support of the [petition, ][the ][High Court ][may be ][pleased ][to]suspend the order dated 11-O9-2023 [in ][1.A.No.297 ][of ][2023 ][in ][AS ][No,14 ][ot ][2023]passed by ll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-MalkaiTiri [District, ][at]
Medchal consequen y thereby grant STAy of all further proceedings includingexecution-proceeding in pursuance of Judgment and Decree dated 01_03-2023 ino.s.No.593 of 2o1s passed -'District, at Medchat, pending diiposat oi _by [principretenio, ],at" Cip. [Cirir ][Jroge, ][rr,reocnairr,narr,aigiii]District, at Medchat, pending diiposat oi _by [principretenio, ],at" Cip. [Cirir ][Jroge, ][rr,reocnairr,narr,aigiii]
Counsel for the [petitioner: ]SRl. SRTDHAR LENDALAY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI p. R. MANOHAR
The Court made the following ORDER:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMARCivi Revision Petition No.31ol 2023
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order dt.l1.09.2023 passed in I.A.No.297 of 2023 in A.S.No.14 of 2023 on thefile of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medchal-MalkajgiriDistrict at Medchal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the['t respondent.
3. Petitioner herein is the appellant in the appeal preferred against thejudgment and decree dt.O1.03.2023 passed in O.S.No.593 of 2015 on thefile Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Medchal, andln defendant in the said suit.
4. The underlying suit, viz., O.S.No.593 of 2015 was filed by the 1nrespondent herein against the revision petitioner and respondents 2 to 5herein, for declaration oF title and recovery of possession. The trial Court,after considering the evidence on record, had decreed the said suit infavour of the 1$ respondent herein.
5. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the revision petitionerclaims to have filed appeal, vide A.S.No.14 of 2023, wherein aninterlocutory application, vide I.A.No.D7 of 2023 under Order XLI Rule 5
---I
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed seeklng to stay the operationof [judgment ]and decree dt.o1.03.2023. The said interlocutory applicationwas dismissed by the 1$ Appellate Court by order dt. 11.09.2023.
6, Though by the present revision petition, the petitioner is seekingfor stay of operation oF judgment and decree dt.01.03.2023 in O.S.No.593of 2015, on the ground that appeal is continuation of original proceeding,the Appellate Court had recorded a categorical finding that the trial Court,having considered the issue of title and possession of the 1n respondent/plaintiff, had decreed the suit, including the claim of the 1$ respondent/plaintiff suffering loss of Rs.40,000/- per month, on account of revisionpetitioner being in occupation of the property. The Appellate Court thus,concluded that if the operation of the judgment is stayed, certainly theplaintifF would cause loss. The said conclusion as arrived at by the 1$Appellate Court, in the considered view of this Court, does not suffer fromany infirmity calling for interference under Article 227 of the Constitutionof India.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision pettion is dismissed.
B. However, taking note of the fact that the appellate Court whilerejecting the stay application had indicated that the appeal itself is to bedecided on rnerit and fixed the date as 28.03.2024, the Appellate Court is requested to take up the appeal for hearing on [the ][said ][date ][or ][any other]
date as it may choose appropriate and dispose of [the ][sarne ][expeditiously.]
9. Miscellaneous [petitions, ]if any, [pending ]in this civil [revision ][petition]
shall stand closed. [No ]order [as ]to [costs.]
SD/.P. PADMANABHA [REDDY]ASSISTANT REGISTRARa^ ,///TRUE COPY//\.2{
SECTION OFFICER
To,
'1. The llAdditional District and Sessions Judge' [Medchal Malkajgiri District]2. One CC to SRl. [SRIDHAR LENDALAY, Advocate ][OPUC]2. One CC to SRl. [SRIDHAR LENDALAY, Advocate ][OPUC]
3. One CC to SRl. [P. R. MANOHAR, ][Advocate ][OPUC]
4. Two CD Copies
kul\}",-MYMY
HIGH COURT
DATED:2911212023
ORDER
CRP.No.3158 of 2023
DISMISSING THE CRP
[$]\q.
\\G [tt][ Als],J? [0 ][tEB ][202{]**OE3 PATC