CRP/6586/2012 of J. Krishna Kumari Vs Kothapally Anasurya , Anasuya on 31 December 2021

1. J. Krishna Kumari,, Wo. J. Subba Reddy,.Aged about 55 years, Occ: Housewife,R/o. H.No.I 0-5-314, Ha.t No.403, K.K. Heights, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028.R/o. H.No.I 0-5-314, Ha.t No.403, K.K. Heights, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028.

2. J. Pradeep Reddy,, S/o. J. Subba Reddy, Aged about 31 years, Occ: Business,R/o, H.No.10-5-314, Flat No.403, K.K. Heights, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028,R/o, H.No.10-5-314, Flat No.403, K.K. Heights, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028, ,.,..PETITION ERS/ PETITION ERS/ DEFEN DANTS 4 AN D 5

AND

1. Kothapally Anasurya @ Anasuya,, Wo. K. Pochaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ:--Housewife, R/o. H.No.B-2-269119/443,Indira Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad s00 034.s00 034.

2. S.R. Narsing Rao,, S/o. S.R. Rajaiah, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.298, Road No.10, lubilee Hills (Gayatri Hills), Hyderabad.H.No.298, Road No.10, lubilee Hills (Gayatri Hills), Hyderabad.

3. V. Srinivas Rao,, S/o. V. Mallaiah, Aged about 34 [years, ]Occ: Business, R/o. FlatNo.312, Vibhavari Towers, Near Rail Vihar, Serilingampally Municipality, RangaReddy District.No.312, Vibhavari Towers, Near Rail Vihar, Serilingampally Municipality, RangaReddy District.

4. M. Raghunath,, S/0. M. Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 39 years, Occ: Business,R/o. Bommuluru Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna DistrictR/o. Bommuluru Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District

...RESPONDENTS

I.A. NO: l OF 2012(CRPMP. NO: 8771OF 2012)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stayof all further Proceedings in OS.No.2434l2006 on the file of the VII Additional SeniorCivll Judge, Ranga REddy District at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of the main CRP

IA NO: 1OF 2021

Between

Kothapally Anasurya @ Anasuya,, Wo. K. Pochaiah, aged about 46 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o. H.No.B-2-269179l443,Indira Nagar, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - 500034'

.....pETrrroNER/REspoNDENT No 1

AND

1. J. Krishna Kuma i,, Wo. J. Subba Reddy, Aged about 55 [years, ]Occ: Housewife,R/o. H.No.I 0-5 314, Hat N0.403, K.K. Heights, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028.R/o. H.No.I 0-5 314, Hat N0.403, K.K. Heights, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500028.

2. J. Pradeep Redry,, S/o. J. Subba Reddy, Aged about 31 [years, ]Occ: Business,R/o. H.No. [t0-5-314, ]Flat No.403, K.K. Heights, Masab Tank, Hyderabad [-]R/o. H.No. [t0-5-314, ]Flat No.403, K.K. Heights, Masab Tank, Hyderabad [-]s00 028.

3. S.R. Narsing Rao, S/o. S.R. Rajaiah, Aged about 48 [years, ]Occ: Business, [R/o.]H.No,298, Road |o.10, Jubilee Hllls (Gayatri Hills), Hyderabad.H.No,298, Road |o.10, Jubilee Hllls (Gayatri Hills), Hyderabad.

4 V. Srinivas hdo,, S/o. V. Mallaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ: Business, R/o. FlatNo.312, ViUhava iTowers, Near Rail Vihar, Serilingampally Municipality, RangaReddy District.No.312, ViUhava iTowers, Near Rail Vihar, Serilingampally Municipality, RangaReddy District.5. M. Raghunath,, : /0. M. Nageshwar Rao, Aged about 39 [years, ]Occ: [Business,]R/0. Bommuluru Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna DistrictR/0. Bommuluru Village, Bapulapadu Mandal, Krishna District

.....RESPON DENTS / RESPONDENTS

Petition under Sectior 151 CPC [praying ]that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit flled in suppct of the [petition, ]the High Court may be [pleased ]to [VACATE]THE INTERIM ORDER )ATE 03.01.2013 in CRP. No. 5586 of 2012 by dismissing theRevision Petition Counsel for thE PEtit ONEr: SRI. T LAKSHMI NARAYANA

Counsel for the Resp ,ndent No1 : S PRABHAKAR REDDY

Counsel for the Resp rndent No 2 to 5 None ,cryrREVISION PETITIONO: 6586 OF20:12

Petition under A licle 227 of the Constitution of India; against the order anddecree dated 21.11.2012 passed in IA No. 582 of 201.2 in OS No. 2434 of 2006 onthe file of the VII Adr itional Senior CivilJudge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagarand allow the said IA Ir:. 582 of 20t2

Between:

1. J. Krishna Kuma i, Wo. J. Subba Reddy Occ: House wife R/o. H.No. 10-5-3/4Flat No. 403 KK t eights Masab Tank, Hyderabad [- ]500 028Flat No. 403 KK t eights Masab Tank, Hyderabad [- ]500 028

2. l. Pradeep Redd', S/o. L Subba Reddy Occ: Business R/o. H.No. 10-5-3/4 FlatNo. 403 KK Heigl ts Masab Tank, Hyderabad [- ]500 028No. 403 KK Heigl ts Masab Tank, Hyderabad [- ]500 028

.....PETITIONERS/ PETITIONERS/ DEFENDANTS 4 AND 5

AND

1. Kothapally Anasu ya @ Anasuya, Wo. K. Pochaiah Occ: House wife R/o. [H.No.]8-2-2681191443 ) rdira Nagar Banjara Hills Hyderabad [- ]50 0348-2-2681191443 ) rdira Nagar Banjara Hills Hyderabad [- ]50 034

2. S.R. Narsing Rao S/o. S.R. Rajaiah Occ: Business R/o. H.No. 298 Road No. 40lunilee Hills ( Ga' atri Hills ) Hyderabadlunilee Hills ( Ga' atri Hills ) Hyderabad

3. V. Srinivas Rao, S /o. V.Mallaiah Occ: Business R/o. Flat No. 312 Vibhavari TowersNear Rail Vihar S rrilingampally Municipality Ranga Reddy DistrictNear Rail Vihar S rrilingampally Municipality Ranga Reddy District

4. M. Raghunath, $ r. M. Nageshwar Rao Occ: Business R/o. Bommuluru VillageBapulapadu Manr al, Krishna DistrictBapulapadu Manr al, Krishna District IA NOr 1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to extend thestay order dated 03.01.2013 made in CRP.No. 6586 of 2012 until further orderspending disposal of the main CRP

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2012(CRPMP. NO: 8774 OF 2012)

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in gupport of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stayof all further proceedings in OS No. 2434 of 2006, on the file of the VII Addl. SeniorCivil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.nagar pending disposal of the main CRp andpass IA NO: 1OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in theaffidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to VACATETHE INTERIM ORDER DATE 03.01,2013 in CRP. N0,6583 of 2012by dismissing theRevision Petition Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. T LAKSHMI NARAYANA

Counsel forthe Respondent: No 1 SRI S PRABHAKAR REDDY

Counsel for the Respondents: 2 to 4 None The Court made the following: COMMON ORdER

THE H( [iN'BLE ]SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

CwIL REVI SION PETITION Nos.6583 & 6Sa6 of 2Ot2

COMMON ORD IR:

In both t re CRPs, parties are common and they havearisen out of t'"r I Interlocutory Applications filed in one suit i.e.O.S.No.2434 of 2O06 on the file of VII Additional Senior CivilJudge, Ranga R:ddy district at L.B.Nagar.

2. C.R.P.No.( 583 of 2Ol2 is filed against the order dated2L.ll.2Ol2 in I A.No.581 of 2OI2, which was filed r_rnder OrderVIII Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to fiIeadditional writte n statement.

3. C.R.P.No.€ 586 of 2012 is filed against the order dated21.11.2012 in I A.No.582 of 2012, which was filed under OrderVIII Rule I r f ' 1 Section 15 1 of CPC seeking per.mission toamend the writt )n statement.

4. The revisic n petitioners in both the CRPs are Defendants 4and 5 in the me in suit. The first respondent/ plaintiff filed thesuit O.S.No.2431 of 2006 for cancellation of documents andconsequential ir junction. According to plaintiff, she is theowner of immor able property, but impersonating her, certaindocuments wer, created by forgery and fabrication and herproperty was sL own as alienated, therefore, she filed the saidsuit for cancr llation of documents and for permanentinjunction. The defendants 4 and 5 filed written statement on 6.7.2007, admitting the ownership of plaintiff over the suitschedule property and stated that the disputed documents werevalidly executed. On 7.8.2000 issues were settled and evidenceon behalf of plaintiff was closed on 26.120211. D.W. 1 filedaffidavit in lieu of chief examination on 24.1.2012. Thedefendants 4 and 5 filed the present Applications, seekingpermission to amend the written statement and also permissionto file additional written statement. According to them, theycame to know that the plaintiff is not the owner of the propert5rand the name of the original owner and the name of the plaintiffaffidavit in lieu of chief examination on 24.1.2012. Thedefendants 4 and 5 filed the present Applications, seekingpermission to amend the written statement and also permissionto file additional written statement. According to them, theycame to know that the plaintiff is not the owner of the propert5rand the name of the original owner and the name of the plaintiffwere different and plaintiff is an imfoster. The Court belowwhile holding that all these are against the admissions made bythe defendants in their written statement and there are no newthe defendants in their written statement and there are no newgrounds of defence arising after initial pleadings and this isnothing but abuse of process of Court, dismissed both theapplications by impugned orders, as against which, the presentCRPs have been filed.nothing but abuse of process of Court, dismissed both theapplications by impugned orders, as against which, the presentCRPs have been filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for revision petitioners/defendants 4 and 5 in both the revisions submits that thedefendants 4 and 5 unearthed a new fact namely, plaintiffimpersonated herself as owner of the suit schedule property bydescribing herself as Anasurya @ Anasuya, which necessitatedthe defendants to amend the written statement by suitable \

amendments lenying the title of the plaintiff by de,leting certainwords and sul [,stitute ]words.

7. Perusal rf plaint in O.S.No.2434 of 2006 5l6rwS, it is filedby Kothapall z Anasurya @ Anasuya for cancellation ofagreement of ;ale and registered sale deeds and for permanentinjunction. In the written statement file on 5.7.2007,defendants ad nitted that the plaintiff is owner of plots bearingNo.175 and 1i 6 admeasuring 600 sq.yards in Sy.No.74 and 75of Gopanpally village, but in the additional writtr:n statementdenied the sa ne. The trial Court observed that they came upwith this petiti rn at the time of examinption of defendants 4 and5. They are n )t new grounds and against admission made bythe petitioners in their written statement and failed to indicategood reason for amendment of written statement aftercommencemer: I of trial and dismissed LA.No.SB2 of 2Ol2 on2t.1t.2022.

8. Having h:ard the learned counsel for revision petitionersand perused t re material available on record, I do not find anyground to inte fere rvith the orders passed by the trial Court.The trial Cou: t rightly dismissed the applications by givingcogent and con rincing reasons.

9. For the f rregoing reasons, both the CRPs are dismissed,confirming the orders passed by the trial Court. There shall be II

no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall stand closed.

sD/-K.ONESIMASSISTANT REGISTRARlLSECTION OFFICER

//TRUE [COPY ]I I

To,

1. The VII Additional Senior [Civil ][Judge, ][Ranga Reddy ][District, ][at ][L'B']Nagar

2. On6 CC to SRI T [LAKSHMI NARAYANA, ][Advocate ][OPUC]

3. One CC to SRI. S [PRABHAKAR ][REDDY, ][Advocate ][[OPUC]]

4. Two CD Copies5. One Spare CoPy,

VMTR

\

HIGH COURTDATED13Llt2l2O2tIORDERCRP.No.6583 AND 6 ;86 of 2O,-21.-s| )-<"'q\.-$"

DISMISSING THE CI\ It REVISION PETITION

6I2a)>=-