None 5 of 2024 on 23 December 2006

1. Mohd. Muzefferuddin Mahmood Khan, (Died Per L.R.s R-52 to 59/ R2 to R-9)

2. Riantana Begum (Defendant No.52), Wo. late Mohd.Muzafferuudin MahmoodKhan.Khan.

3. Arshia Kauser (Defendant No.53), D/o late Mohd.Muzafferuudin.

4. Fouzia Ather (Defendant No.54), D/o late Mohd.Muzafferuudin MahmoodKhan.Khan.

5. Sadiya Anwar (Defendant No.55), D/o late Mohd.Muzafferuudin MahmoodKhan.Khan.

6. Atiya Nikhath (Defendant No.56), D/o late Mohd.Muzafferuudin MahmoodKhan.Khan.

7. Naziya Nuzhath (Defendant No.57), D/o late Mohd.Muzafferuudin MahmoodKhan.Khan.

8. Mohd. Arifuddin Khan Rasheed [(Defendant ]No.SB), S/o. Late Mohd.Muzafferuudin Mohammed Khan.Muzafferuudin Mohammed Khan.

9. Mohd. lmaduddin Khan Majid [(Defendant ]No.59), S/o late MohdMuzafferuudin Mahmood KhanMuzafferuudin Mahmood Khan (R-1 to R-B are Petitioners 13 in 1.A.53412O21 and Legal Heirs of DefendantNo. 1 brought on record as Defendants 52-59 in O.S. as [per ]orders in l.A.No24 ot 2020)

10. Mohd. Naseeruddin Ahmed Khan, [(died per ]L.R.s Respondents [No.10 ][- ][12)]

...Respdt No.9/(Plaintiff No.1 )

11. [\lrs. Ghousia Begum (Plaintiff No.2), Wo. Late. Mohd. Naseeruddin AhmedKhan, Muslim Aged about 81 years, Occ. Retired EmployeeKhan, Muslim Aged about 81 years, Occ. Retired Employee

12. tvlohd. Nasiruddin Ahmed Khan (Plaintiff No.3), S/o. Late Naseeruddin AhmedKhanKhan '13.tvlohd. Atheruddin Ahmed Khan (Plaintiff No.4), S/o. Late Mohd. NaseeruddinAhmed Khan...Respondents 9-12 (respdts 1-4 in l.A.No. 534/2021lPlaintitt 241(-.he Plaintiffs 2to 4 are added in suit as per Orders in LA.No.974 of 2018,dated 27.08.2018).

14. trirs. Aziza Begum (Died per LRs R-2 to 5)

...Defendant No.2.

15. Ahmed Azheruddin Hasan Khan (Defendant No.3). S/o. Late Mohd.Fareeduddin Hasan Khan,Fareeduddin Hasan Khan,

16. Mohd. Moinuddin Hasan Khan (Defendant No.4), S/o. Late Mohd.

F,ereeduddin Hasan Khan,

17. Mrs. Shahnaz Sultana (Defendant No.S), S/o. Late Mohd. Fareeduddin HasanKhan,Khan, lB.Knadija Fatima (Defendant No.6), D/o. Late Ghousia Begum.

'19.Acdul Sattar (Defendant No.7), S/o. Late Ghousia Begum.

...Respondents 1 3 to 18 are Defendants No.2 to 7

20. Mrs. Rehmatunissa Begum (D-8) (Died per LRs Defendants No.37 to 40)

21. Rahim Ali Khan (Defendant No.9)

22- Shujat Ali Khan, S/o. Late Khursheedunnisa Begum

....RespondenU2nd AppellanU Defendant No.1 0

23. Saleha Khatoon (D-12), D/o. Late Khursheedunnisa Begum

24. Abida Khatoon (D-13), D/o. Late Khursheedunnisa Begum,

25. Slraheda Khatoon (D-14), D/o. Late Khursheedunnisa Begum,

26. Mchd. Rasheeduddin Khan (D-'15), S/o. Late Mohd. Sharfuddin Khan,

27. Mthd. Nayeemuddin Khan (D-16), S/o. Late Mohd. Sharfuddin Khan,

28. Jefarunissa Begum (D-17), D/o. Late Mohd. Sharfuddin Khan,

29. Wahedunissa Begum (D-18), Died per LRs Defendants 48 to 51,

30. Khairunissa Begum (D-19), D/o. Late Mohd. Sharfuddin Khan,

31. Rabia Begum (D-20), (Died per LRs Defendants No.21 to 25),

32. Mrrhd. Moazamuddin Khan (D-21), S/o.LateAhmed Mohiuddin Khan,

33. Mrrhd. Saleemuddin Khan (D-22), (Died per LRs Defendants No.33 to 36),34.Mohd. Mujeebuddin Khan (Defendant No.23), S/o. Late Ahmed MohiuddinKhan,34.Mohd. Mujeebuddin Khan (Defendant No.23), S/o. Late Ahmed MohiuddinKhan,

35. Ferrhatunissa Begum (Defendant No.24), D/o. Late Ahmed Mohiuddin Khan(Died per LRs Defendants 60 to 69),(Died per LRs Defendants 60 to 69),

36. Rerfat Rehana (Defendant No.25), D/o. Late Ahmed Mohiuddin Khan, 3T.Yarssen Begum (Defendant No.26), (Died on 23.12.2006 issueless),

38. H:rbeebunissa Begum (Defendant No.27) (Died per LRs Defendant No.2B)

39. Mr. Gulam Ahmed (Defendant No.2B), S/o. Late Shaik Fareed,

40. Mr. Ahmed Abdul Rawoof (Defendant No.29), S/o. Gulam Ahmed,

41. M:;. Ayesha Fatima (Defendant No.30), D/o. Gulam Ahmed,

42. Ms;. Salma Fatima (Defendant No.31), D/o. Gulam Ahmed,

43. Ms;. Habeeba Fatima (Defendant No.32), D/o.Gulam Ahmed.

(The Defendants 28-32 are legal heirsof Late Noorunissa Begum, D/o. LateMohd. Moinuddin Khan brought in record as per Order in l.A No.2857l2008,dated 01 .04.2009).

44. Smt. Zakia Sultana (Defendant No.33), Wo. Late Mohd. Saleemuddin [Khan,]

45. Fabiha Kausar (Defendant No.34), D/o. Late Mohd. Saleemuddin Khan, 46, Mohd. Raziuddin Khan (Defendant No.35), S/o. Late Mohd. SaleemuddinKhan,

47. Mohd. Ahmeduddin Khan (Defendant No.36), S/o. [Late Mohd. ][Saleemuddin]Khan,

48. Syed Hussain [(Defendant ]No.37), S/o. Syed Ali,

49. Syed Flassan (Defendant No.3B), S/o. Syed Ali,

50. Mrs. Anees Fatima [(Defendant ]No.39), D/o. Syed [Ali,]

51. Syed Arif (Defendant No.40), S/o. Syed Ali,

52. Shameemunnisa Fazana [(Defendant ][No.4'l), ][D/o. Late ][Mohd. ][Basheeruddin,]Wo.Mohd. lmtiaz Hussain,

53. Mohd. Aneesuddin [(Defendant ]No.42), S/o. [Late Mohd. Basheeruddin,]

54. Najeeb Su{tana [(Defendant ]No.43), D/o. [Late Mohd. Basheeruddin,]

55. Naiees Rehana (Defendant No.44), Dio. [Late Mohd. Basheeruddin,]

56. Mohd. Habeebuddin [(Defendant ]No.45), [S/o. ][Late Mohd. Basheeruddin,]

57. Naseem Rizwana (Defendant No.46), D/o. [Late Mohd. Basheeruddin,]

58. Mohd. Raziuddin [(Defendant ]No.47), [S/o. Late ][Mohd. ][Basheeruddin,]

(The Defendants No.41 to 47 are added to suit as [party ]defendants [by ][order]dated 02.04.2013 [passed ]in l.A.No.)

59. Mohd. Abdul Hameed [(Defendant No.48), S/o. ][Wahedunnisa ][Begum,]

60. Ayesha Sultana [(Defendant ]No.49), [Dio. ][Wahedunnisa ][Begum,]

61. Abdul Naveed [(Defendant ]No.50), [S/o. ][Wahedunnisa ][Begum,]

62. Mohd. Raheemuddin Nadeem [(Defendant No.51), S/o. ][Wahedunnisa ][Begum,]

63. Abdul Bari Anwar [(Defendant ]No.60), [S/o. Late Gulam Mujtaba,]

64. Abdul Aziz (Defendant No.61), S/o. [Late Gulam Mujtaba]

65. Mohd. Jadluddin Qamar [(Defendant ][No.62), ][S/o. ][Late Gulam ][Mujtaba,](adopted father Mr. Mohd. Mazheruddin Hasan Khan),(adopted father Mr. Mohd. Mazheruddin Hasan Khan),

66. Abdul Hadi Zubair [(Defendant ]No.63), [S/o. Late Gulam Muitaba,]

67. Abdul Rahman Zabi [(Defendant No.64), S/o. ][Late ][Gulam Mujtaba,]

6S.Maimonna Fatima [(Defendant No.65), D/o. Late Gulam Mujtaba,]

69. Sameena Fatima [(Defendant No.66), D/o. ][Late ][Gulam ][Mujtaba,]

T0.Durdana Fatima [(Defendant ]No.67), [D/o. Late Gulam Mujtaba,]

71. Zareen Fatima [(Defendant No.68), D/o. Late Gulam Mujtaba,]

72. Rubeena Fatima [(Defendant No.69), D/o. Late Gulam Mujtaba']

...Respondents 13 to 70 / Defendants 2lo [51 and 60 ][to ][69 are ][not ][made]partiei to the impugned order in 1.A., hence they are also [not ][necessary]parties to this appeal and l.A.

...Respondents/Plaintiffs/Defendants

Petition under Order [XLVII Rule ][1 ][R/w. ][Section ][151 of ][CPC ][praying ][that ][in]the circumstances stated [in ][the ][affidavit ][filed ][in support of ][the ][petition, ][the ][High]Court may be [pleased ][to ][review and set aside ][the ][e,ommon ][Judgment ][passed ][in]AS Nos. 270 of 2022 and [batch, ][dated: ][17-08-2023 and hear ][the ][appeals afresh.]

Appeal filed under Section [96 ][of ][C.P.C., against ][the ][Judgment ][and ][decree]dated 15.02.2022 [passed ]in l.A.No. [534 ][ot 2021 in ][O.S.No. ]['182 ][of ][2O06 ][on the ][file ][of]the court of the X Additional District [Judge (FTC) ][Court, Ranga ][Reddy District ][at]L.B.Nagar.

Rev. l.r\.No. 5 of 2024 inA.S.No. 274 ol 2022

Betweern:

{iadiq Ali Khan, S/o. Late. Khursheedunnisa Begum

...Petitioners/Appellant No.1/Defendant No.1 1

AND

1 . Smt. Habeebunnisa Begum - D27 - died per LRs D41 to 47 .

2. Mr. C;ulam Ahmed, Slo. f"t" Shaik Fareed, Aged about 74 years,Occ: Business,

3. Mr. Ahmed Abdul Rawoof S/o. Gulam Ahmed, Aged about 36 years, Occ:Household,

4. Ms. A.yesha Fatima, D/o. Gulam Ahmed, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Housewife,

5. Ms. Salma Fatima, D/o. Gulam Ahmed, Aged about 26 years, Occ.

6. Ms. F abeeba Fatima D/o. Gulam Amed, Aged about 21 years, Occ: Student, All are FJo House No.1B-243131N64, G.M. Colony, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad-S.

(The Defendants 28-32 are legal heirs of Late Noorunnisa Begum D/o. Late Mohd.Moinudclin Khan brought on record as per order in 1.A.No.2857 of 200g, datd:01-04-200s)200s)

7. Shanreemunnisa Farzana D/o. Late Mohd. Basheeruddin Wio. Mohd. lmtiazHussain Aged about 59 years, Occ:Household,

8. Nageeb Sultana D/o. Late Mohd. Basheeruddin, Aged about 54 years, Household,

9. Nafet:s Rehana D/o. Late Mohd. Basheeruddin, Aged about 4g years, Occ:Household,

10. Mohrj. Habeebuddin S/o. Late Mohd. Basheeruddin, Aged about 49 years, Occ:Pvt. Emprloyee,

11. Nasr:em Rizwana D/o. Late MohdBasheeruddin, Aged about 47 years, OccHousehcld,

12. Mohrj. Raziuddin S/o. Late MohdBasheeruddin, Aged about 41 years, OccBusiness,Business, All R/o. l-1,No.16-2-5119, Akbar Bagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad-36

(The Defendants 41 to 47 are added to suit as party defendant by order dated02.04.2O13)02.04.2O13)

... Respondents/Petitioners i-,t2 ln Defendant No.1, 27 1o32,41,43 to 4Z

13. Mohd. Naseeruddin Ahmed Khan, (Died per LRs)

14 Mrs. Ghousia Begum, Wo. Late Mohd. Naseeruddin Ahmed Khan, aged about82 years, Occ: Retired Employee,

15. Mohd. Nasiruddin Ahmed Khan, s/o. Late Mohd. Naseeruddin Ahmed Khan,Aged about 51 years, Occ: Engineer, Presenfly working at Saudi Arabia,Aged about 51 years, Occ: Engineer, Presenfly working at Saudi Arabia,

16. Mohd. Atharuddin Ahmed Khan, S/o. Late Mohd. Naseeruddin Ahmed Khan,aged about 49 years, Occ: Sales Executive at Saudi Arabia.

AII are R/o. H.No.9-4-131/46, Akbar Bagh, Tolichowki, Hyderabad.

... Res pondents/Pla intiffs

17. Mohd. Muzafferuddin Mahmood Khan (Died per LRS, Defendants 52 to 59)

18. Mrs. Aziza Begum (Died per LRs)

19. Ahmed Azheruddin Hasan Khan S/o. Late Mohd. Fareeduddin Hasan Khan,Aged about 52 years, Occ: Consultant Engineer,

20. Mohd. Moinuddin Hasan Khan, S/o. Late Mohd. Fareeduddin Hasan Khan, Agedabout 52 years, 2'1. Mrs. Shahnaz Sultana D/o. Late MohdFareeduddin Hasan Khan, Aged about43 years, Occ: Govt. Employee,43 years, Occ: Govt. Employee, AII are R/o. 6-3-12471201, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-S00 082.

22. Khadtla Fatima D/o. Late Ghousia Begum, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Doctor,R/o. Rose Public School, Aman Nagar "B", Talabkatta, Hyderabad.

23. Abdul Sattar S/o. Late Ghousia Begum, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business,R/o. Rose Public School, Aman Nagar "8", Talabkatta, Hyderabad.

24. Mrs. Rehmatunnisa Begum (Died per L[slDef. No.37 to 40)

25. Rahim Ali Khan, H/o. Khursheedunnisa Begum, Aged about 5g years, Occ:Business,

26. Saleha Khatoon D/o. Lale Khursheedunnisa Begum, Aged about 24 years, OccHousehold,Household,

27. Abicla Khatoon D/o. Late Khursheedunnisa Begum, Aged about 21 years, Occ:Househcld,

28. Shaheda Khatoon D/oLate Khursheedunnisa Begum, Aged about 20 years,Occ: Household, All are F'Jo. H.No. 1B-7-358/A"/13, Amannagar "B', Talabkatta, Hyderabad.

29. Mol"d. Rasheeduddin Khan S/o. Late Mohd. Sharfuddin Khan, Aged about 57years, C)cc: Agriculture, R/o. H. No. 1 7-2- 181 l2$l3, Aljabri Colony, Near MadannapetPolice Station, Hyderabad.

30. Mohd. Nayeemuddin Khan S/o. Late Mohd. Sharfuddin Khan, Aged about 52years, Crcc: Govt. Employee, R/oH.No.18.74231An60, Talab Kafta, Aman Nagar,Hyderabad.

31 . Jafarunnisa Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Sharfuddin Khan, Aged about 60 years,Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.2-116, Moin Mohalla , Shamshabad.Hyderabad.Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.2-116, Moin Mohalla , Shamshabad.Hyderabad.

32. Wahr:dunnisa Begum (Died per LRS, D4B to D51)

33. Khairunnisa Begum D/o. Late Mohd. Sharfuddin Khan Aged about: 54 EddiBazar, Y,akoothpura, Hyderabad. years, Occ: Household, R/o H. No. 17-1-137t2t8,

34. Rabia Begum (Died per LRs who are already on record as Respondent Nos.33to 37)

35- Mohcl. Moazamuddin Khan s/o Late Ahmed Mohiuddin 89/A/90, Madina colony,Jahnuma, Hyderabad-SO0 253.

36. Mohd. Saleemuddin Khan (Died per se, Defendant Nos.33 to 36)

37. Mohd. Mujeebuddin Khan S/o Late Ahmed Mohiuddin K90, Aged about 137years, Or;c,Business, H.No. 19-3-1089/4/90, Madina Colony, Jahnuma, Hyderabad_500 253.

38. Farhatunnisa Begum DioLate Ahmed Mohiuddin Khan, (Died per LRs,Defendarts No.60 to 69)

39. Rafat Rehana D/o. Late Ahmed Mohiuddin Khan, Aged 52 years, -Occ:Household, Rlo.17 -3-31 1 183/1, Yakhutpura Colony, Hyderabad-S00 002.

40. Yaseern Begum (Died on23-12-2006 issueless)

41. Smt. .Zakia Sultana Wo. Late Mohd. Saleemuddin Khan Aged about 49 years,Occ: Houl;ehold,

42. Fabiha Kausar D/o. Late Mohd. Saleemuddin Khan, Aged about 25 years, Occ:Househoki,

43. ltilohd. Raziuddin Khan S/o. Late lr/ohdSaleemudddin Khan, Aged about 24years, Occ: Business,

44. Mohd. Ahmeduddin Khan S/o. Late Mohd Saleemmuddin Khan, Aged aboul 22years, occ: Business, All are R/o. 19-3-1089/fu90, Madina Colony, Jahanuma, Hyderabad-S0O 053.

45. Syed Hussain S/o. Syed Ali, aged about 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1g-B-1 04/85, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad-S0O 023.

46. Syed Hassan S/o. Syed Ali, aged about 40 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.1g-B-104/85, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad-s00 023.

47. Anees Fathima, W/o. Mohammed Anwar All, Aged about 50 years, R/o. H.No.17-1-1371919, Abu Sayeed Colony, Rein Bazar, Charminar, Hyderabad-S0O 023.

48. Syed Arif, S/o. Syed Ali, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 1B-B-104/85, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad-S0O 023.

49. Mohd. Aneesuddin S/o. Late Mohd. Basheeruddin, Aged about 57 years, pvt.Employee, R/o. H No.16-2-5119, Akbar Bagh, Malakpet, Hyderabad-36.

50. Mohd. Abdul Hameed S/o. Wahedunnisa Begum, Aged about 40 years, Occ:Business,

51. Ayesha SultanaD/o. Wahedunnisa Begum, Aged about 30 years, OccHousehold.

52. Abdul Naveed S/o. Wahedunnisa Begum, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Business,

53. Mohd. Raheemuddin Nadeem S/o, Wahedunnisa Begum, Aged about 25 years,Occ: Govt. Employee, All are R/o. 1B-7-198/4/89, Muradmahal, Talabkatta, Hyderabad.

54. Rizwana Begum, Wo. Late Mohd. Muzzafaruddin Mahmood Khan, Aged about69 years, Occ: Household,

55. Arshia Kausar, D/o. Late Mohd. Muzaffaruddin Mahmood Khan, Aged about 46years, Occ: Household,

56. Fouzia Ather, D/o. Late MohdMuzaffaruddin Mahmood Khan, Aged about 45years, Occ: Household,

57. Sadia Anwar, D/o. Late Mohd. Muzaffaruddin Mahmood Khan, Aged about 40years, Occ: Household,

58. Athiya Nikhat Anwar, D/o. Late Mohd. Muzaffaruddin Mahmood Khan, Agedabout 39 years, Occ: Household,

59. Nazia Nuzat, D/o. Late MohdMuzaffaruddin Mahmood Khan, Aged about 39years, r)cc: Household,

60. Mord. Arifuddin Khan Rashed, s/o. Mohd, Muzaffaruddin Mahmood Khan, Agedabout 43 years, Occ: Household,

61. Molrd. lmaduddin Khan Majid, s/o. Late Mohd. Muzaffaruddin Mahmood Khan,Aged about 36 years, Occ: Nil, All resiclents of H.No. 16-2-slt9tlrA,Akbarbagh, Marakpet, Hyderabad-S00 036.Marakpet, Hyderabad-S00 036.

62' Abdur Bari Anwar 5/0. Late. Guram Mujtaba, aged about 51 years, occ: Business,R/o. H.No. 17-1-1q2tDt6z, Near Madina Masj-io, Santo"h i,Lt;;,-a;y""i"urU,Hyderabad, TS.

63. Abdul Aeiz sro. Late Grramrvrujtaba, aged about 53 years, occ: Business, R/o.H.No. 1i3-2{3/3tN27t1tF, G.M. Cotony, Chindrayanagutti, Hyderabad, T.S). [-']

64. Mohd. Jararuddin oamar (Defendant No.62) Late Guram Mujtaba (AdoptedFather llr. Mohd. Mazheniddin Halan Khan) agei about 48 years, occ: Business,R/o.H.N,r. l9-3-1089/4/90, Madina Colony, Fala[numa, HyderjbaO.

65. Businesr;, Abdul Hadi R/o.H.No. Zubair 9loa^k!g Gutam Mujtaba, aged about 33 years, Occ:16-9-438/D, Old Malakpet, i{yderabad, T.S.

66. Abdul Rahman Zabi.S/o.. Business;, R/o.H.No.16-9438/D, llg-gytam Old Malakpet, Mujtaba, HyOeraOaO, aged about f.S.33 years, Occ:

67. Mairnoona Mairnoona Fatima D/o.

67. Mairnoona Mairnoona Fatima D/o. Household, R/o. H.No. 16-2-708, Matakpet, ^Late- [Gulam ]Akbarbagh, [Mujtaba, ][aged ]Hyderabad, [about ]TS. [4g ][years, ]'[Occ:]

68. Sanreena Fatima D/o. .Gulam Mujtaba, aged about 39 years, Occ:Household, R/o. 2-3-38, euadri .!{e Bagh, Amberpei, Hyderabad, T.S.

69. Durclana Fatima D/o. . Late Gulam Mujtaba, aged about 43 years, Occ:Household, [eUo. ]17-1-127, Eidi Bazar, Hyderabad, i.S.

70. Zareena Fatima D/o- . Late- _Gulam Mujtaba, aged about 3g years, Occ:Household, [PUo. ]17 -1 -3Ot 1 1 4, Etdi Bazar, Hyde;ba;, T.S.

71 . Rubt:ena Fatima D/o Late - [Gulam lvlujtaba, ][aged about ][32 ][years, ][Occ:]Household; R/o. 16-9438/D, Otd Malakpet, Hyderabad, T.S.- [Gulam lvlujtaba, ][aged about ][32 ][years, ][Occ:]Household; R/o. 16-9438/D, Otd Malakpet, Hyderabad, T.S.

... Respondents/pla i ntiffs/Defendants

72 Shujat Ali Khan, S/oLate Khursheedunnisa Begum Muslim, Aged about 40years, Occ: Business,R/o H.No.18-7-358tN13, Aman Naghai Tatabiatta,HyderabaC.

(The Respondents 17 to z2were not made party Respondents to r.A.No.2 1g of 2021and the impugned order as not necessary parties & hence they ,r. u,formal parties to the above Appeal)."rr"y.d Petition filed under order XLVII Rule 1 R/w. section 114 of cpc prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, theHigh court may be pleased to review and set aside ihe common Judgmentpassed in AS No. 274 of 2022 and batch, dated: 17-08-2023 and heir theappeals afresh Appeal filed under section 96 of c.p.c., against the Judgment and decree dated15.02.2022 passed in t.A.No. 218 of 2021 in o.s.No. 182 of 2006 on the fite of thecourt of the X Additional District Judge (Frc) court, Ranga Reddy District atL.B.Nagar.15.02.2022 passed in t.A.No. 218 of 2021 in o.s.No. 182 of 2006 on the fite of thecourt of the X Additional District Judge (Frc) court, Ranga Reddy District atL.B.Nagar.

counsel for the Appellant (in both) : Sri prakash Reddy, senior counselrepresenting Sri T. Ashok Counsel for Respondents (in both)Sri E. Madan Mohan Rao, SeniorCounsel representing Sri Yadaiah Jetti The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

i

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI

Revierv I.A.No.S of 2024

ln

A.S.Nos.270 & 274 of 2022

COMTMON ORDER:

This application is filed by the petitioner appelrant No.l - defendantNo.1 I to review and set aside the common judgment dated r7 .0g.2023 passed inA.S.N,r.270 of 2022 and A.S.No.274 of 2022.

2. Heard Sri Prakash Reddy, leamed Senior Counsel representingSri r.Ashok, leamed counsel for the review petitioner on record and SriE.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Senior counsel representing Sri yadaiahJetti,leame<l counsel for the contesting respondents on record.

3' l-eamed senior counsel for the review petitioner contended thato.S.N..182 of 2006 was fired by the praintiffs seeking partition of the suitschedule property comprising of items I-l l admeasuring Ac.r1 4-22 guntas inSurvey Nos.12 l, 122, r35, 136, 137 and r47 situated at Mankhar Vilrage,Mahes"'aram Mandar, Rangareddy District within the limits of TukkugudaMunicipality and items 12 to 16 admeasuring Ac.60_36 guntasin SurveyNos.443, 446,449,490 and 491 situated at Timmajiguda, tVo.Mankhal Village,Mahes'varam Mandal, Rangareddy District. The suit was fired by the son of l

one of the four [joint ]owners of the suit schedule property. The sole plaintiffdied after filing the suit. As such, his legal representatives - his wife and twosons have come on rccord as plaintiffs 2 to 4. As per the plaint averments, thefather of the original plaintiff by name Fakhruddin Khan had three brothersnamely Late Mohd.Moinuddin Khan, Late Mohd.Sharfuddin Khan and LateAhmed Mohiuddin Khan and they used to live [jointly. ]They owned andpossessed the suit schedule property jointly. Thus, the plaintiff and defendantswere [joint ]owners, pattadars and owners of all the agricultural land admeasuringAc.235-18 guntasof Mankhal and Timmajiguda Villages, Maheswaram Mandal,Rangareddy District. In the cause of action column, it was [pleaded ]that [the]cause of action arose on 12.02.2006 and thereafter on several occasions whenthe plaintiff orally demanded for partition of the suit schedule [property ]andwhen some of the defendants failed to oblige his request. In the suit only [3]defendants i.e. defendants t, 3 and 27 fied written statements and the otherdefendants adopted the said written statements. The l" and 27d defendants,who were the children of one of the four [joint ]owners namely Mohd.MoinuddinKhan had admitted in their written statement that items I to [I ]I of [the ]suitschedule property were [joint ]properties of four brothers and [liable ]to [be]partitioned among the legal heirs of those four [joint ]owners i.e. the [plaintiff ]anddefendants in the suit. The defendant No.l also stated [that ][himself ][and ][his]brother filed declarations under AP Land Reforms [(Ceiling ]on [Agricultural]

Dr.GRR, JReview ia 5 2024inas 270&274 ZO22lloldings) Act, 1973 in c.C.No.4l83 fi/75 andc.c.No.4tti2lt /75 declaring l/4bshare in items I to ll ofthe suit schedule property and the entire extent of items12 to 16 of the suit schedule property. Their hotdings and the said declarationsv'ere accepted and accordingry their holdings were determined by the LandR-eforms Tribunal, Hyderabad South Division vide order dated 10.09.1976. Thesaid defendants also admitted in their written statement that all the parties to thes'it had disposed of about 60 acres of rand in the joint properry and shared theconsideration amount according to their shares. The said defendants alsoprayed for passing of a preliminary decree for items I to I I of the suit schedulep'operty. However, they had disputed the suit craim for partition of items l2 toIti of the suit schedule property alleging that the same was the self-acquiredproperty of their ancestors, as such, it was not liabre for partition among theolher parties to the suit. The 3'd defendant in his written statement admitted theerrtire suit claim and prayed for decreeing the suit, as filed for alr the items ofthe suit schedule property. Thus, all the parties to the suit had admitted thatite:m5 1 1o I I of the suit schedule property were joint property of four brothersand the same were liable to be partitioned among the legal heirs of those fourbr'cthers i.e. the plaintiff and defendants in the suit. The l,'and 27th defendantsexpired after filing written statements. As such, their regal representatives werebrrrughl on record, defendants 52 ro 59 as legar represenutives of defendantNo.l and defendants 4r to 47 as legal representatives of defendant No.27. The

Dr.GReview ia 5 2024 in as 270 & 274 2022

Dr.GReview ia 5 2024 in as 270 & 274 2022

LRs of defendants I and 27 had also not disputed or denied the admissionsmade by their predecessor that items I to I I of the suit schedule property worethe [joint ]properties of four brothers and the same were liable to be partitionedamong the parties to the suit. They did not file any additional written statement.On the other hand, the legal representatives of defendant No.27 filed a memostating that they had adopted the written statement of defendant No.27. Thedefendants 28 to 32 also filed a memo stating that they had adopted the writtenstatement filed by defendant No.27. As all the [parties ]to the suit inciuding theLRs of defendants I and 27 had admitted the suit claim for partition of items Ito l l of the suit schedule property among the parties to the suit and defendantsI and 27 also prayed for passing of a preliminary decree to the extent of itemsof I to 11, the other defendants including the present review [petitioner ]hadstopped keeping a constant watch on the day to day [proceedings ]of the suit.Infact, the trial court ought to have passed a preliminary decree for the adrditteditems i.e. items 1 to I I of the suit schedule [property. ]But, unforhrnately, nosuch preliminary decree was passed for more than 16 [years, ]even for [the]admitted items. During that period of 16 years. all the parties to the suit wereacting as joint owners of the suit schedule property and some of them haddisposed of theA respective share of land in the suit schedule [property ][by]executing registered sale deeds in favor of third [parties. ]The [petitioners ]inI.A.Nos.218 and 534 of Z}Zljoined as consenting [parties ]in some of those iale Dr.GRR, JReview ia 5 2024 in as 270&274 2022Review ia 5 2024 in as 270&274 2022deeds to confirm the recitals therein that items I to l1 of the suit scheduleproperty are the joint property of four brothers. In the year 1954, the Tahsildarproperty are the joint property of four brothers. In the year 1954, the Tahsildargranted succession patta in those items for l/4s share each to the said four jointowners and their legal heirs. While matter stood thus, after lapse of more thanowners and their legal heirs. While matter stood thus, after lapse of more than16 years, the LRs of defendant No.27 i.e. defendants 41, 43 to 47 along withdefendants 28 to 32, who adopted the written statement of defendant No.27,defendants 28 to 32, who adopted the written statement of defendant No.27,filed I.A.No.2 I 8 of 2021 for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule t I ofCPC. In the same manner, the LRs of defendant No.l i.e. defendants 52 to 59CPC. In the same manner, the LRs of defendant No.l i.e. defendants 52 to 59also filed I.A.No.534 of 2027 for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule l1 ofCPC in O.S.No.182 of 2006. In the said I.A.s, they had impleaded only theplaintiff as the respondent by making an endorsement that other defendants inthe surt were not necessary parties to the said I.A. The said I.A.s were filedwith allegations and averments, which were contrary to the admissions made bytheir predecessors stating that all the items of suit schedule property includingitems I to 1l were the self-acquired properties oftheir predecessors, as such, theother praftiss to the suit were not entitled for partition of the same, there was noplaintiff as the respondent by making an endorsement that other defendants inthe surt were not necessary parties to the said I.A. The said I.A.s were filedwith allegations and averments, which were contrary to the admissions made bytheir predecessors stating that all the items of suit schedule property includingitems I to 1l were the self-acquired properties oftheir predecessors, as such, theother praftiss to the suit were not entitled for partition of the same, there was noconcept of joint family in Mohammedan Law, as such, the plaintiffs had nocause of actionand *re suit was barred by law.

3.1. I-earned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner further contended thatthe trial court numbered the said I.A.s without raising any objection as to theirmainta:nability for not impleading the other defendants in the suit as l Dr,GR&

Review ia-5-2024 [in ][asJ70 ][& ][274J022]

in the [said ][I.A.s. ][Thus, ][the ][trial ][court ][aiter ][hearing ][only ][the]respondents plaintiffs, had allowed both [the ][I.A.s. ][by ][separate ][orders ][dated ][15.02.2022 ][and]rejected the [plaint ][holding ][that ][there was ][no ][cause ][of ][action ][for ][filing ][th€ ][suit]and the suit was barred [by ][law. ][The ][said orders were ][passed ][on the ][basis ][of]allegations and [averments made ][in ][the said ][two ][I.A.s. ][The ][plaint ][averments ][as]a whole were not referred, [which ][was ][mandatory ][for ][deciding ][the ][petitions ][filed]under order vII Rule I I [of ]cPC. [He ][further ][submitted that ][the ][suit and ][I.A.s]were posted on different [dates. ][The suit ][stood ][posted ][on ][04.03.2022, whereas]the I.A.s. were [allowed ]oi [15.02.2022 ][and the ][trial ][court ][suo-moto ][advanced](preponed) the hearing [date ][of ][the ][suit from ][04.03.2022 ][to ][15.02.2022 and]passed order terminating [the ][suit ][proceedings, ][as ][per ][the ][orders ][passed ][in]I.A'Nos.2l8and534of202l.Thus,thetrialcourtrejectedtheplaintandterminated the suit [proceedings ][without ][giving ][notice ][or opportunity ][of ][hearing]to the other defendants [in ][the ][suit, ][inspite ][of ][the ][fact that the ][suit ][in ][question]being a suit for [partition, ][all ][the ][parties should have the ][status ][of ][plaintiffs. ][In]the above circumstances, [the ][review ][petitioner being ][the defendant ][No.l ][I ][in ][the]suit filed the above [Fint ][Appeals questioning ][the orders ][passed ][in ][the ][two ][I.A.s.]

3.2. Learned [Senior ][counsel for ][the ][review petitioner further submitted ][that ][as]per the procedure [prescribed under CPC ][in ][Order ][XLI ][regarding ][appeals ][from]original decrees, [the ][First ][Aipeals would ][be ][posted ][before ][the Court ][for ][final]disposal only [after ][service ][of ][notices ][to ][all ][the ][respondents ][by ][the ][Registry']

Dr.GRR, JReview ia_5_2024 in as_270 & 274 2OZ2onl' interlocutory applications would be posted before the court. In the batchof FLrst Appeals, all the defendants in the suit were arrayed as respondents andall the appellants filed interrocutory applications for grant of interim orden andthost: I.A.s. were posted before the court. At this stage, the court heard themain appeals by treating them as part-heard and dismissed alr the First Appealsby common judgment dated. 17.0g.2023 before serving notice to the otherrespc,ndents / affected parties and confirmed the orders passed by the trial courtrejec:ing the plaint. In the said common judgment, this Court had notconsidered the various contentions raised and the binding precedents cited insupport of the said contentions. Those precedents consisted of the judgmentspassed by the Hon'ble Apex court and the judgments passeil by the DivisionBenc;res of this court, which were directly applicable to the points that arose fordetennination in the First Appears. As sucb, the petitioner fired the presentrevierv petition seeking review of the common judgment passed by this courtdated' 17.08.2023 on the ground that there were errors apparent on the face ofthe record in the said common judgment, as this court referred to and reriedupon the orders passed in cRps, which were filed by some other defendants(not t'y the present review petitioner) assuming that those cRps were filedbefore disposal of the I.A.s and the same were dismissed. yet, the petitioners inthe said cRP had not taken steps for impreading lhem as respondents in the saidI.A.s, which was fattr:aily incorrect, as the said cRps were filed after disposal

I)r.GRR.

Review ia_5_2024 in as-270 & 274-2022

I)r.GRR.

Review ia_5_2024 in as-270 & 274-2022

of the I.A.s questioning the orders passed in the said [I.A.s.This Court ][did ][not]consider the contentions raised in the binding precedents [cited ][in ][supPort ][ofthe]said contentions in the said common [judgment]

3.3. Leamed Senior Counsel for the review petitioner further contended [that]the common [judgment ]passed in the above First Appeals was suffering [from]error, which was apparent on the face of the record from Paragraphs [19 and ][32]of the common [judgment. ]Infact, the Court commifted [a ][grave error ][of ][law ][in]referring to and relying upon the observations made [in ]the order [passed ][in ][the]said CRPs, as the said order was [passed ]dismissing [the CRPs ][on ][the ][ground ][of]availability of alternate remedy, but not on nrerits. The other [error ][apparent ][on]the face of the record was that in Paragraph 16 of [the common ][judgment, ][this]Court mentioned all the binding [precedents ]cited on [behalf ][of ][the ][appellants ][in]support of the contentions raised by them. However, [this Court ][did ][not ][consider]any ofthose contentions or binding [precedents ]and [relied upon ][the ][judgments ][of]the Hon'ble Apex Court in Medical Council of [India v. ][Christian ][Medical]College, Vetlore & Othersrand tndian Charge [Chrome ][Limited ][and another]v. Union of India and Others2. Learned Senior [Counsel ][for ][the ][review]petitioner further submitted that he was not making any submissions on [merits]and if the review petitions are allowed, he [would ][submit ][his ][arguments ][ol1]

ments.'Q0t6) [4 ][SCC ][342]'(2005) [4 ][SCC 67]

Dr.GRR, JReview ia_5_2024 in as_270 & 214 Z02Z

4. Leamed Senior counser for the contesting respondents on the other handconteded that there was no discovery of any new and important matter that wasmisserl out during the hearing of the Appeal suits. All the points raised andarguetl by the review petitioner as the appellant in the Appeal Suits wereconsid ered by this court while rendering its judgment and decree. Hence, therewas no scope of review on that ground. There was no error app.arent on the faceof the record. This court had given its findings on all the contested issues.Therefbre, the only remedy that courd be availed by the petitioner was f,rlingSLP, but,it was not a matter for review, as there were no mistakes apparent onthe face ofthe record. There was also no other suffrcient reason to grant review.one of the parties had already approached the Hon'ble Apex court and sufferedrejectic,n of leave, which might be the reason for the review petitioner notapproar:hing the Hon'ble Apex Court. Even though, the review petitionersuffererl the decree in A-S.Nos.270 & 274 of 2022, his right of instituting aseparato suit under order vII Rule 13 of cpc was not precluded. It was astatutory right. without exercising such a statutory right, he is wasting the timeof this [(lourt ]and prayed to dismiss the review petitions.

5. considering the submissions of both the learned counsel, as the leamedSenior [rloursel ]for the contesting respondents ! gontgnd]ng that the reviewpetition'r ought to have approached the Hon'bre Apex court instead of filingrevlewpetitions before this Court, Ieamed Senior [' ]Counsel for the i Dr.GRR, Review ia_5_2024 in asJ70 & 274 2022

review petitioner relied upon the [judgment ]of the Hon'ble Apex Court inKunhayammed& Others v. State of Kerala& Another3, wherein the Hon'bleApex Court considered the doctrine of merger and the nght of review and heldthat:

34- The doctrine of merger and the right ofreview are concepts which are closely inter-tinked. If the [judgment ]of the High Court hascome up to this Court by way of a special leave,and special leave is granted and the appeal isdisposed of with or without reasons, byafhrmance or otherwise, the [jud$nent ]of theHigh Court merges with that of this Court. Inthat event, it is not permissible to move the HighCourt by review because the [judgment ]of theHigh Court has merged with the [judgment ]ofthis Court. But where the special leave petitionis dismissed - there being no n.Ierger, theaggrieved party is not deprived of any statutoryright of review, if it was available and he canpursue it. It may be that the review court mayinterfere, or it may not interfere depending uponthe law and principles applicable to interferencein the review. But the High Court, if it exercisesa power of review or deals with a reviewapplication on merits in a case where the HighCourt's order had not merged with an orderpassed by this Court after grant ofspecial leave -the High Cou{ could not, in law, be said to be 3(2000) 6 scc 359

wrong in exercising statutory jurisdiction orpower vested in it.

37. Let us assume that the review is filed firstand the delay in the SLP is condoned and thespecial leave petition is ultimately ganted andthe appeal is pending in this Court. The positionthen, under Order 47 Rule I CPC is that still thereview can be disposed of by the High Court. Ifthe review of a decree is granted before thedisposal of the appcal against the decree, thedecree appealcd against will cease to exist andthe appeal would be rendered incompetent. Anappeal cannot be preferred against a decree aftera review against the decree has been granted.This is because the decree reviewed gets mergedin the decree passed on review and the appeal tothe superior court preferred against the earlierdecree - the one beforc review - becomesinfruchrous.

38. The Review can be filed even after SLP isdismissed is clear from the language ofOrder 47Rule I (a). Thus the words no appeal has beenpreferred in Order 47 Rule l(a) wolld also meana sifiration where special leave is not granted.Till then there is no appeal in the eye of lawbefore the superior court- Therefore, the reviewcan be preferred in the High Court before specialleave is granted, but not after it is granted. Thereason is obvious. Once special leave ir graot"dthe [jurisdiction ]to consider the validity of theHigh Court's order vests in the Supreme Courtand the High Court cannot €ntertain a review Dr.GRR.

Revicrv ia 5 2024 in [as ][2'70 ]& [214 ][2022]

thereafter, unless such a [review ][application ][was]preferred in the High Court before [special ][leave]was granted.

40. A petition seeking [grant ]of [special leave ][to]appeal may be rejected [for ][several reasons. ][For]example, it may be rejected

(i) as baned by time, or

(ii) being a defective [presentation,]

(iii) the petitioner having no locus [standi ][to ][file]the petition,

(iv) the conduct of the [petitioner disentitling him]to any indulgence by lhe [Court, ][(iv) ][the ][question]raised by the [petitioner ][for ][consideration ][by ][this]Court being not fit [for ][consideration ][or]deserving being [dealt ][with ][by ][the ][apex ][court ][of]the country and so on. [The ][expression often]employed by this Court [while ][disposing ][of ][such]petitions are - heard and dismissed, [dismissed.]dismissed as barred [by time ][and so on.]

May be that at the [admission stage ][itself ][the]opposite party appears on [caveat ][or ][on ][notice]and offen contest to [the ][maintainability ][of ][the]petition. The Court may [appty ][its ][mind ][to ][the]merit worthiness of [the ][petitioners ]Prayerseeking leave to file [an ][appeal ][and ][having]formed an opinion [may say dismissed on merits.]Such an order may [be ][passed ][even ex-parte, ][that]is, in the absence of [the opposite party. ][In ][any]case, the dismissal [would remain a dismissal by]a non-speaking order [where ][no ][reasons ][have]

Review ia 5 2024 in as 270 & 274 2022

been assigned and no law has been declared bythe Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of thethe Supreme Court. The dismissal is not of theappeal but of the special leave petition. Even ifthe merits have been gone into, they are themerits of the special leave petition only. In ouropinion neither doctrine of merger nor Articlel4l of the Constitution is attracted to such anorder. Grounds entitling exercise of reviewjurisdiction conferred by Order 47 Rule I of theC.P.C. or any other statutory provision orallowing review of an order passed in exercisemerits of the special leave petition only. In ouropinion neither doctrine of merger nor Articlel4l of the Constitution is attracted to such anorder. Grounds entitling exercise of reviewjurisdiction conferred by Order 47 Rule I of theC.P.C. or any other statutory provision orallowing review of an order passed in exerciseof writ or supervisory jurisdiction of the HighCourt (where also the principles underlying orCourt (where also the principles underlying oremerging lrom Order 47 Rule I of the C.P.C. actas guidelines) are not necessarily the same onwhich this court exercises discretion to graDt ornot to grant special leave to appeal whiledisposing of a petition for the purpose. Mererejection of special leave petition does not takewhich this court exercises discretion to graDt ornot to grant special leave to appeal whiledisposing of a petition for the purpose. Mererejection of special leave petition does not takeaway the jurisdiction of the court, tribunal orforum whose order forms the subject matter ofpetition for special leave to review its oun orderif grounds for exercise of review jurisdiction areshown to exist. Where the order rejecting anSLP is a speakrng order. that is. where reasonsforum whose order forms the subject matter ofpetition for special leave to review its oun orderif grounds for exercise of review jurisdiction areshown to exist. Where the order rejecting anSLP is a speakrng order. that is. where reasonshave been assigned by this Court for rejectingthe petition for special leave and are stated in theorder still the order remains the one rejectingthe petition for special leave and are stated in theorder still the order remains the one rejectingprayer for the grant of leave to appeal. Thepetitioner has been turned away at the threshotdwithout having been allowed to enter in theappellate [jurisdiction ]of this Court. Here also thepetitioner has been turned away at the threshotdwithout having been allowed to enter in theappellate [jurisdiction ]of this Court. Here also thedoctrine of merger would not apply. But the law Dr.GRR, Review ia 5 2024 in 8s 270 & 214 2022

Dr.GRR,

Review ia 5 2024 in 8s 270 & 214 2022

stated or declared by this Court [in ][its ]order [shall]attract applicabiliry of Article 14l of theConstitution. The reasons assigned [by this Court]in its order expressing its adjudication [(expressly]or by necessary implication) on [point ]of [fact ]orlaw shall take away the [jurisdiction ]of any othercourt, tribunal or authority to express anyopinion in conflict with or in departure [from ][the]view laken by this Court because [permitting ][to]do so would be subversive ofjudicial disciplineand an affront to the order of this [Court-]However this would be so not by [reference ][to]the doctrine of merger.

6. Thus, a review petition is maintainable even [after ][the ][dismissal ][of ][the]SLP. The order rejecting the SLP [filed ][by ][the ][plaintiffs ][is also ][a ][non-speaking]order. As such, the doctrine of merger [would ][not ][apply.The ][Hon'ble ][Apex]Court did not reverse or modify the [decree ][or ][order ][appealed against ][while]deciding a petition for special leave to [appeal. ][Rejecting ][the SLP would ][only]mean that the Hon'ble Apex Court [was ][not inclined ][to exercise ][its ][discretion to]allow the appeal being filed.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the [review ][petitioner ][submitted ][that ][the]present petition for review was filed by the review [petitioner ][on two ][grounds.]One that the. learned Judge [did ][not ][consider ][the ][contentions raised ][by ][the]appellants and the law declared [by ][the Hon'ble ][Apex ][Court ][and ][the ][Division]Benches of this Court in support of [the said ][contentions ][and ][that ][it ][was ][an ][error]

Dr.GRR, JRevierv ia 5 2024 in as 270 & 274 2022

appar€nt on the face of the record from Paragraph 16 and 24 of the commonjudgrnent. His further contention was that this Court commined a grave error oflaw in referring to and relying upon the observations made in the order passedin thr' CRPs, as the said order was passed dismissing the CRpS on the ground ofavailability of altemate remedy, but not on merits.judgrnent. His further contention was that this Court commined a grave error oflaw in referring to and relying upon the observations made in the order passedin thr' CRPs, as the said order was passed dismissing the CRpS on the ground ofavailability of altemate remedy, but not on merits.

8. With regard to his first contention of not considering the bindingprecedents, the ieamed Senior Counsel for the review petitioner relied upon thejudgrnent of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryanaa,wherr:in it was held that:

*65- In our considered view, the non-consideration of the reasoning given by the FullBench of the High Court in Jai Singh II, whichfindings were given by relying on the judgmentof the Constitution Bench of this Court inBhagat Ram, and not showing as to how thefindings therein were erroneous in law, wouldalso amount to an error, apparent on the face ofthe record.

67. In our considered view, the non-consideration of the reasoning given by the FullBench of the High Court in Jai Singh II, that onaccorurt of morc than 100 decisions rendered byvarious Benches of the High Court, the doctrineof stare decisis is applicable, would also be anerror apparent on the face ofthe record."

l)r.GRR.

Revierr' 1a-5-2024 in as-270 & [274:2022]

9. This Court referred to various [judgments cited ][by ][the ][leamed ][Senior]Counsel for the appellants in Para [No. ][16 and ][the ][judgments relied ][by ][the]leamed counsel for the respondents in [Para ][No.20. ][However, ][failed ][to ][take ][into]account the principles enunciated in [the ][judgments relied by the ][learned counsel]for. the appellants. This Court referred [to ][some ][of ][the ][judgments relied by ][the]leamed counsel for the respondents, but [observed ][in ][Para ][No.24 that "reference]of each decision and contentions [thereon ][is ][inelevant. ][Hence, ][the ][same ][is]avoided to have succinctness of the [decision".]

10. Non-consideration of [the principles ][enunciated ][in ][the ][said judgments]resulted in miscarriage of [justice, ]as [per ][the ][contention ][of ][the ][learned ][Senior]Counsel for the petitioner.Learned [Senior Counsel ][for ][the ][petitioner ][contended]that they relied upon the [judgments ][of ][the ][Hon'ble Apex ][Court ][in ][Saroj Anand]v. Prahlad Rai Anands and Mohammed [Ibrahim ][v. ][Syed ][Muhammad]Abbubakkar6 on the [principle that the ][court ][below ][passing orders without]giving notice or opportunity of hearing to the other [defendants ][in ][the suit ][to]oppose I.A.No.218 of 2021 amounts [to violation ][of ][principles ][of ][natural ][justice]and fair play and they relied upon [the ][judgments ][of ][the ][Hon'ble ][Apex Court in]Nunna Rama Krishna Nageswara [Rao ][v. Bolisetty ][Lakshmi ][Venkata ][Naga]Srinivasa Rao?, Venkatappa @ [Moode (Dead) by LRs. ][v. ][M.Abdul ][Jabbart,]

s(2004) l scc 31 76(2009\'t SCC 104'2002 [(t) ][ALD ][632]6(2009\'t SCC 104'2002 [(t) ][ALD ][632]

Dr.GRR, JRevierv ia 5 2024 in zs 270 & 274 2022Heeralalv. Kalyan Mal & Others'i,, rrrpport of the contention that I.A.No.218of 20')-l frled by the legal heirs of defendant No.l was not maintainable sincethey tLave admitted items I to I I of the suit schedule property as [joint ]propertyand prayed for a preliminary decree for the said items. They relied upon thejudgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s. Shakti Bhog Food IndustriesLimited v. The Central Bank of lndiaro in support of the contention that thecourt below illegally rejected the plaint without even referring or much lessconsi<lering the plaint averments. The review petitioner - appcllant relied uponthe [judgment ]of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Srihari Hanumandas Totala v.Hemant Vithal Kamatlr in support of the contention that the suit filed forpartition ofjoint property was not baned by any statutory law or judicial dicta,more so, when all the parties to the suit admitted items I to I I of the suitschedule prop€rty as the [joint ]property and prayed for a preliminary decree forthe said items. The petitioner further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'bleApex Court in Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) [t2 ],C.Nartrajan v. Ashim Bair3and Biswanath Banik v. Sulanga Boseta in supportof their contention that the court below had no [jurisdiction ]to reject the plaint onthe basis of averments made in I.A.No.2l8 of 2021. He furthcr contended that 3(2006)9 SCC 235'(1998) [I ][SCC.278]'oAIR:t020 [sC ][27rt]1'(2021) 9 SCC 99"(2020)) [7 ][SCC 366]"(200';) [t4 ][scc ][183]11AIR 12022 SC l5l9

Dr.GRcview ia 5 ZOZ.I ir as 270 & 274 Z02Z

they relied upon the [judgment ]of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nunns RamaKrishna Nageswara Rao v. Bolisetty Lakshmi Venkata Naga Srinivasa [Rao](cited supra) and Venkatappa @ Moode (Dead) by LRs. v. M.AbdulJabbar(cited supra) in suppoft of their contention that filing of LA.No.218 of2021 by the respondents I to 8 with pleadings, which were contrary to theadmissions made by their predecessor i.e. defendant No.l in his writtenstatement, was not maintainable. They relied upon [the ][judgment ]of [the ][Hon'ble]Apex Court in Mayar (H.IC) Limited and others v. Owners & Parties,Vessel M.V.Fortune Express & Othersrs in support of their [contention ][that the]observations made by the court below that the suit [was vexatious and ][without]any merits and cause of action was created for the [purpose ]of [frling ][the ]suit [were]contrary to the plaint averments and [pleadings ]of [the parties ][to ][the ][suit ][including]the petitioners in I.A.No.2l8 of 2021. He further contended [that ][each ][and ][every]judgment cited was on a certain principle of law enunciated by the Hon'bleApex Court as well as the Division Barch of [this ]Court, [which ][were ][binding ][in]nature. Not considering the contentions raised [by ][the ][appellants and ][the law]declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the [above ][judgments ][is an error apparent]on the face ofthe record.

11. This Court agrees with the contentions [raised ][by ][the leamed ][counsel ][for]the petitioner. The Court ought not to have avoided [referring ][to ][the ][judgments]

"(2006) [3 SCC ][loo]

Review ia_S_2024," ^_rrO [r.Oiffii]^_rrO [r.Oiffii]

relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner and ought not to have observedthat the principles enunciated thereon were irrerevant in coming to a conclusion.The atrove judgments cited rerate to various principres, which are rerevant to thepoints that arise for determination in the First Appears. As such, it is consideredas an error apparent on the face of the record.

12. ['Ihe ]other ground on which the review application was filed was withregard to misconception of the court in rerlng upon the orders passed in thecRPs tiled by some other defendants (not by the petitioner herein) assumingthat th.se CRps were filed before the disposal of the I.A.s, yet the petitioners inthe sairr cRps had not taken steps for impreading them as respondents in thesaid I.I..s, which was factually incorrect.

13. lhis Court in para No.32 of the common judgment dated 17.0g.2023 heldthat:that:

32. The contention that the other defendantswere not made parties to the application cannotbe entertained because all the contesting partieswere represented by their counsel. While the suitwas pending, the applications for rejection werefiled by some of defendants. Such applicationswere long pending and during the interregnumof filing and disposal there wcre manyadjoumments. Ifthe concemed defendants werereally interestedinopposing the saidapplication, theycouldhave resisted the Dr.G

Rcview ia 5 2024 in as 270 & 214 2022

application by appropriate steps. Further, theyhave also approached this Court with CivilRevision Petition Nos. 1050, 1051, 1675 and1676 ot 2022 and such petitions were dismissedby this Court holding that they have failed io fileapplication as interveners. In spite of suchorders, they did not choose to intervene andinvited orders. Now, they cannot challenge theimpugned orders passed on the same ground thatthey were not made parties. Therefore, suchcontention cannot be sustained.

14. As seen from the above observation made by this Court, this Courtassumed that the CRPs were filed before the disposal of I.A.Nos.2l8 and 534 of2021 ad the petitioners in the said CRPs had not taken any steps forimpleading them as respondents in the said I.A.s. As seen from the record,I.A.Nos.218 & 534 of 2021 filed under Order VII Rule I I of CPC were allowedon 15.02.2022and the orders in C.R.P.Nos.1050, 1051, 1675 and 1676 of [2022]were passed on 28.09.2022. The said CRPs were filed by defendants 39 [and ]40challenging the orders in I.A.Nos.218 & 534 of 2021 and the same [were]disposed of observing that when the contesting respondents had not [impleaded]the petitioners therein, the petitioners would have filed the [petitions ]to [get]themselves impleaded in the I.A.s.

15. This Court by referring to the said CRPs observed that "inspite of [such]orders, they did not choose to intervene and [invited ]orders", [which ][gives]

Dr.GRR, J

Revierv ia 5 2024 in as 270 & 274 2OZ2an imoression that this court was under a misconception that the petitionerherein also did not take steps for impleading himself as respondent in the saidI.A.s. The said assumption made by this court is an error apparent on the faceof the record, as the cRPs were filed after the disposal of I.As.. questioning theorders passed in the said I.A.s. The said cRps were dismissed on the groundthat a,l altemate remedy of appeal is available to the said petitioners forquesti.ning the order passed by the trial court rejecting the plaint, but not onmerits. Therefore, the common judgment passed in the First Appeals issufferirg from errors, which were apparent on the face of the record.

16. ['[he ]other submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for thecontesting respondents was that the review petitioner was not entitled to file aseparate suit for parrition as per the provisions of order VII Rule 13 of cpc.The tri;rl court passed the orders in the two I.A.s rejecting the plaint holding thatthere uas no cause of action for filing the suit for partition ofjoint property andthat tht: suit was barred by law. This court confirmed the said findings in thecommc n judgment passed in the above Appeals. Therefore, the said findingswould operate as res judicata and a separate suit for partition might not bemainrainable.

17. 1'he remetly provided under ordervll Rule 13 of cpc can be invoked asalternate remedy before filing appeal against the order passed by the trial court Dr.C

Revi€w i, 5 2024 in as 270 & 2'14 2022

rejecting the plaint. Since the review [petitioner ][had ][availed ][the remedy ][of ][filing]the First Appeals against the orders passed by the trial court in the two I.A.s, [a]fresh suit cannot be filed. As per Order VII Rule 13 of CPC, a fresh [plaint ][can]be filed curing the defects in the [plaint ][as ][pointed ]out in [the ][order rejecting ][the]plaint on the grounds mentioned in Order VII Rule l1 of CPC. But [after ]filingthe appeals, the question of filing a second suit would not arise [and ][it ][was ][not]possible more so when the plaint was rejected on the ground that [ther€ ][was ][no]cause ofaction and the suit was barred by law.

18. Considering all these aspects, it [is ][considered ][fit ][to ][allow the ][review]applications filed by the [petitioner ]setting [aside the common ][judgment ][passed ][in]A.S.Nos.270 & 27 4 of 2022 dated [17 ].08.2023.

19. Intheresult, I.A.No.5 of 2024 [inbothA.S.No.270&274of ][2022are]allowed sefting aside the common [judgment ][passed ][in ][A.S.Nos.270 ][& ][274 ][of]2022 dated 17.08.2023.

//TRUE COPY//

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAOJOINT REGISTRAR

SECTION OFFICER/

To,

1. The X Additional District Judge [(FTC) Court, Ranga Reddy ][District ][at]L.B.Nagar.2. The SEction Officer, Appeal [Filing Section, ][High ][Court ][for ][the ][State ][of]Telangana at Hyderabad.3. One CC to Sri T. Ashok, Advocate [OPUC]L.B.Nagar.2. The SEction Officer, Appeal [Filing Section, ][High ][Court ][for ][the ][State ][of]Telangana at Hyderabad.3. One CC to Sri T. Ashok, Advocate [OPUC]

4. One CC to Sri Yadaiah Jetti, Advocate [OPUC]

5. Two CD Copies

Njb/gh\?

HIGH COURT

DATED:0711112024

:( riE STAr,('sco2 [B ][}lI\J ][2[2t]o*DgSpATCHCOMII/ION ORDERREV. l.A.No. 5 of 2024lnAS.Nos.27O & 274 ot 2022

ALLOWING THE I.AIN BI)TH THE APPEALS

fooPt<'t;