Telangana High Court
CRP/2115/2022 of Nazeer Mohiuddin Vs Rekulapally Uma Rani on 30 December 2022
227 of constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2022 of cMA No. 10 of 2019 on the file of the court of the principal District Judge at Siddipet. Between: Nazeer Mohiuddin, S/o Asad Moinuddin, aged about 33 years Occ.Business Rl/o H.No.12-4-98lE, Nazeer Nagar Colony, Siddipet
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD
FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITIO N NO:21f5 OF 2022
Petition under Nticle 227 of constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated21.06.2022 of cMA No. 10 of 2019 on the file of the court of the principal DistrictJudge at Siddipet.Judge at Siddipet.
Between:
Nazeer Mohiuddin, S/o Asad Moinuddin, aged about 33 years Occ.BusinessRl/o H.No.12-4-98lE, Nazeer Nagar Colony, Siddipet Town And District
...PETITIONER
AND
1. Rekulapally Uma Rani, Wo Linga Reddy, aged about 52 years, Occ:HousewifeHousewife
2. Rekulapally Linga Reddy, S/o Narsa Reddy,Aged about 56 years, Both are N-o 17-4-2211, Priyadarshini Nagar, Near Maitry Vanam, SiddipetTown and District
...RESPONDENTS
l.A NO: 1 OF 2022
Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances statedin the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order ofinterim suspension of the order dated 2110612022 passed in CMA.No.10 of 2019in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order ofinterim suspension of the order dated 2110612022 passed in CMA.No.10 of 2019by the Principal District Judge at Siddipet, pending disposal of the above CivilRevision Petition.Revision Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri S. GANESH RAO
Counsel forthe Respondents : Sri DILEEP KUMAR BOMMENA
The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HON' ILE SRI JUSTICE MUMMINENI SIID:(ltElt KUMARCIVIL REVISION PtrTITION NO.21 J 5 OF )-)2i',CIVIL REVISION PtrTITION NO.21 J 5 OF )-)2i',
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:
'lhis )ivil Revision Petition is directed agzrnst the orderdated 21.0>.2022 in C.M.A.No.tO ol 2019 passe(l by thePrincipal Di strict Judge at Siddipet reversing tht: ordr-'r passedin LA.No.4Or of 2018 in O.S.No.12O of 2O18 on ihe tile of theCourt of th: Principal Junior Civil Judge at Siiclditrret dated16.O7.20t9.
2. The pt titioner herein filed O.S.No.120 of 2O 18 for relief ofperpetual ir junction and the in the said suit, he also heldI.A.No.405 ol 2018 seeking temporary injunction in r,:spect ofthe suit prol,erty i.e. Ac.0.03 gts situated in Surv:1' No.55/A ofPonnala Vill rge, Siddipet Mandal and District, [.vith ]specifiedboundaries.
3. The trirl Court, having taken note of the c< ntents of theaffidavit filed in support of I.A.No.4OS of 2018 an(l the counterfiled by the rr.spondents herein, by simply making r reference tothe documen Ls marked on either side i.e. Exs.P. I to P.29 onbehalf ol the petitioner herein and Exs.R. 1 to R.5 on behalf ofthe respondt nts herein, without discussing th e na.ture ofdocuments ar d the contents therein etc., passed ar unrr:asoned MSK,J
C.R.P.NO.21 15 0F 2022
order stating that it appears to the Court that the petitioner isable to establish pima facie case in his favour and the balanceof convenience also tilts in his favour i.e. in favour of tl-repetitioner herein. Absolutely, no reasons were furnished forarriving at such conclusion by the trial Court. Aggrieved by thesaid order, the respondents herein filed C.M.A.No.10 of 2O19and the same was allowed by the lower appellate Court by theorder under revision, dated 21.06.2022.
4. The lower appellate Court considered the matter inelaborate and considered the documents that are marked onbehalf of either side, discussed about the title of both the partiesetc. Hence, this Court is not inciined to interfere with the orderunder revision in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 olthe Constitution of India.
5. The lower appellate Court has not chosen to discuss theaspect of possession as on the date of filing of the suit, which isthe crucial and paramount consideration in the matters of grantor refusal to grant a temporary injunction. No doubt, the lowerappellate Court discussed the matter in detail but failed torecord any finding with regard to pima facte possession over thesubject property as on the date of hling of the suit. From theclaim that is being made by the petitioner herein as well as the MSri,JC.R.P.N, ).21 1 s OF 2022
3
respondents it is prima facie noticed that troth t t-re perrties areclaiming florr of title from the very same original ru,ner/ownersand there is no much dispute in that regard. Bu thel' claimedto have acqt ired the property at different points c f rime. Thereis no hndir g or discussion with regard to identihr of theclaiming florr of title from the very same original ru,ner/ownersand there is no much dispute in that regard. Bu thel' claimedto have acqt ired the property at different points c f rime. Thereis no hndir g or discussion with regard to identihr of theproperty tha t is being claimed by the parties o I either side,either at the instance of the trial Court or by the k,vver appellateCourt. In th: absence of any dispute about the o [-igineLl ]owner,either at the instance of the trial Court or by the k,vver appellateCourt. In th: absence of any dispute about the o [-igineLl ]owner,the questior that would fall for consideration is atrout theidentity of th ) property that is being claimed by th( petir-ioner aswell as the r:spondents herein and the actual flo\v of title etc.,identity of th ) property that is being claimed by th( petir-ioner aswell as the r:spondents herein and the actual flo\v of title etc.,which is tota ly lacking in the order passed by the :rial [(lourt ]aswell as the a1 pellate Court.well as the a1 pellate Court.
6. The trj al Court shall look into the aspec t of framingspecific issur s with regard to possession and identitl/ of theproperty thal is being claimed by the parties an I if the trialCourt feels that such issues are required to be fraroed, the trialCourt may frz me such issues and then proceed to conduct trial.7. Subject to the above observations, the Civil IlevisionPetition is dis nissed with a further direction to the .rial Oourt todispose of th: suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any ratewithin a peri< d of six (6) months from the date ol receipt of a MSK,J
c.R.P.NO.2115 0F 2022
copy of this order without being influenced by any of theobservations made either in this order or in the order underrevls10n.
There shal1 be no order as to costs. Miscellaneousapplications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
Sd/. P. GOWRI SHANKARASSISTEGISTRARSECTIN OFFICER
//TRUE COPY//
To,
1 . The Principal District Judge, Siddipet, Siddipet District.
2. One CC to Sri S. GANESH RAO, Advocate [OPUC]
3. One CC to Sri DILEEP KUMAR BOIVMENA, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CD Copies.
\ \.X
Nib
-,.
HIGH COI,lRTMSK,JDATED:3(111212022c\5iIIP-\L!CiaORDERCRP.No.2115 of 2022
DISMISSIN ] THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIO].]WITHOUT [(]OSTS]WITHOUT [(]OSTS]
o*G30\'