Telangana High Court
CRP/912/2012 of Pathan Haseena, Vs Chenna Lakshmamma (died) on 31 December 2012
SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 912 of 2012 ORDER:- In this Civil Revision Petition sought to declare delivery proceedings dated 05.01.2012 in E.P.No.1 of 2006 (E.P.) in R.C.C.67 of 1989 (R.C.C.) and all other incidental proceedings on the file of Rent
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 912 of 2012
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:-
In this Civil Revision Petition sought to declare deliveryproceedings dated 05.01.2012 in E.P.No.1 of 2006 (E.P.) in R.C.C.67of 1989 (R.C.C.) and all other incidental proceedings on the file ofRent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, as illegal.
2. Originally, the R.C.C. filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein toevict the respondents 11 to 15 herein from the property scheduledtherein, was disposed of by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur byorder dated 16/7/1993, granting the relief prayed for. Consequently,the E.P. was filed for the delivery of the property to the respondents 2to 10 (since the 1[st] respondent died). At that time, the petitionersherein (third parties) raised objection for the delivery of property on theground that they were the absolute owners and possessors of theproperty by virtue of possessory agreement of sale executed by theoriginal owner of the property, namely, Chenna KanakaiahS/o.Chenna Gurappa. But, the petitioners herein were evicted from theschedule property on 5/1/2012 in the execution of the decree. According to the petitioners, they filed claim petition (E.A. /2011) witha request to dismiss the eviction orders and to reinstate them into theschedule property, but the same was returned without assigning anyreasons.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that thecourt below instead of numbering the claim petition, returned it andconsequently, injustice has been done to the petitioners by way ofevicting them from the property and not considering their claim andalso not taking necessary steps for reinstating them in the scheduleproperty. Hence, it is necessary to see that their possession isrestored and their claim petition is enquired into and necessary ordersare passed.
4. The learned counsel for the opposite side has opposed thepetition.
5. In the circumstances stated above, it is proper to advise the courtbelow (Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Guntur) toconsider the claim of the petitioners and pass necessary orders takinginto consideration all relevant material. The petitioners are at liberty tofile or represent the claim petition, whereas the court below shouldconsider it upon the presentation of it. It is not proper to dispose of thematter once for all without considering the claim petition. The courtbelow has to make enquiries and consider whether the petitionershave got a case and then only consider the question of reinstatingthem. In the circumstances stated, the E.P.1 of 2006 is restored.
6. With the observation made above, the C.R.P. is disposed of. However, the Court below (Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior CivilJudge, Guntur) is directed to take necessary measures to dispose ofthe matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisOrder. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this Civil RevisionPetition shall stand closed.
31[st] December, 2012Anr
________________________________
G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY
Anr
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 912 of 2012
Date: 31.12.2012