CCCA/21/1991 of RADHESHYAM AND 3 OTHERS Vs MALLIKHARJUNA SWAMY TEMPLE HYDERABAD on 21 December 2001

1. K.Ramaswamy, S/o. Chandraiah (Died) per LR, Appellants 2 to 4.

2. K.Jana Bai, W/o. Late K.Ramaswamy

3. K.Prabhakar, S/o. Late K.Ramaswamy

4. K.Sudhakar, S/o. Late K.Ramaswamy

(LRs of deceased 1[st] Appellant)

(Appellants 2 to 4 are brought on record as LRs of deceased 1[st] Appellant asper court order dated. 28-3-08 in CCCAMP. 7/08)

...Appellants

AND

1. Sri Mallikarjuna Swamy Temple, known as Mallanna Deval, Bondilguda, rep.by C.Balaiah Yadav, Secretary of the Mallanna Temple Committee,Hyderabad, S/o. C.Mutyala Yadav, R/o. 20-1-581, Gollakiniki, Pooranapool,Hyderabad.by C.Balaiah Yadav, Secretary of the Mallanna Temple Committee,Hyderabad, S/o. C.Mutyala Yadav, R/o. 20-1-581, Gollakiniki, Pooranapool,Hyderabad.

(CT. of Respondent No.1 is substituted in the place of the deceasedSecretary S.Mallaiah (R1) as per court order dated. 3-4-08 in CCCAMP.202/08)

2. Shah Hamid Siddiqui, S/o. Shah Md. Siddiqui (Died per LR RRs 55 & 56)

3. Syed Hassan, S/o. Syed Yaseen, Begum Bazar, Hyderabad.

4. The Secretary Muslim Wakf Board, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh.

5. Shaik Suleman, S/o. Shaik Mohiuddin, No. 6-1-342, Khairatabad, Hyderabad.

6. Hasanuddin, S/o. Hobinuddin (Died per LRs 7 & 8)

7. Sakeena Bee, W/o. Hasanuddin, Bhadurpura, Hyderabad.

8. Jamalunnisa, D/o. Hasanuddin, Bhadurpura, Hyderabad.

(RR 7 & 8 who are already on record are recorded as LRs of deceased Respondent No.6 vide Memo USAR.No. 1424 ordered by Dy. Registrar dt.15-4-99)

9. Mailaram Krishna, S/o. Mailaram Mallaiah, Chourag Bhanj, Hyderabad.

10. Vemna Trading Company, K.Bhandari (Died per LR R38)

11. Chandra Reddy (Died per LR 26)

12. Bansilal, Gollakidki, Hyderabad.

13. Radheshyam, S/o. Bajaranglal, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

14. Hari Ram, S/o. Bajranglal, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

15. Kashi Pershad, S/o. Murlidhar (Died per LR RRs 57 to 63).

16. Vishwambar Lal, S/o. Murlidhar, Dhoolpet, Hyderabad.

17. Hukim Singh (Died per LR R52)

18. Ramji Baba, S/o. Lakshminarayana, Old Bridge, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

19. Raj Lingam, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

20. Parameshwar, S/o. Balraj, Karwan, Hyderabad.

21. Anusuya Bai, W/o. Bankat Ram, Bhadurpura, Hyderabad.

22. S.Lingaiah, S/o. Papaiah (Died per LRs RR 64 & 65)

23. Eashwariah (Died per LRs 66 & 67)

24. Lakshmaiah, S/o. Papaiah (Died per LR R68)

25. Pushpamma, W/o. Kistiah (Died per LR R69)

26. Anantha Lakshmamma, W/o. Chandra Reddy, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

(R26 who is already on record are recorded as LR of deceased RespondentNo.11 vide memo USR.No. 1422 ordered by Dy.Registrar dt. 15-4-99)No.11 vide memo USR.No. 1422 ordered by Dy.Registrar dt. 15-4-99)

..2..

27. Ramalakshmi, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

28. Noor Jahan Begum, W/o. M.A.Rahimhan Siddiqui, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

29. Ammena Begum, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

30. Kaza Mohiuddin, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

31. Papaiah (Died per LR R50)

32. M.Ishaq, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

33. Muzafar Mia, S/o. Mohd. Ali

34. Mazhar Mia, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

35. Abid Hussain, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

36. Sharfuddin, S/o. Abdul Ghani, Tadban, Hyderabad.

37. Azhara Begum, Tadban, Hyderabad.

38. S.Bhandra, Bhadurpura, Hyderabad.

(R38 who is already as on record are recorded as LR of deceased Respondent No.10 vide memo USR.No. 1423 ordered by Dy. Registrar dt.15-4-99)15-4-99)

39. Tarabai, W/o. Gopal, Bhadurpura, Hyderabad.

40. Gori Begum, Bhadurpura, Hyderabad.

41. Yellaiah, Bhadurpura, Hyderabad.

42. Kambaiah, Bhadurpura, Hyderabad.

43. Babiah, S/o. Balaiah, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.

44. Mallaiah, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

45. Jalal Miah, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

46. Md. Ali Masoon, W/o. Mohd Ali, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

47. Saleem Pasha, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

48. Chandra Bai, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

49. Nayeemuddin Khan, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

50. Parvatamma, W/o. Sailu, D/o. Papaiah (Deceased Deft No.32), NandiMuslamguda, Urban, Hyderabad District.Muslamguda, Urban, Hyderabad District.

(R50 who is already on record is recorded as LR of deceased Respondent No.31 vide Memo USR No. 1427 ordered by Dy. Registrar dt. 15-4-99)

51. P.Anjaiah (Died per LRs RR 70 to 72)

52. Dharma Bai, W/o. Babulal, 19-5-15/1, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.

(R52 who is already on record is recorded as LR of deceased Respondent No.17 vide Memo USR.No. 1426 ordered by Dy. REgistrat dt. 15-4-99)

53. K.Parameswar, S/o. K.Balaraj, 13-6-950/3, Karwan, Hyderabad.

54. Balamma, W/o. Sailu, 19-4-349, Kishan Bagh, Near Konda Reddyguda,Hyderabad.55. Smt. Zainab Bebum56. Sajid Siddiqui57. Smt. Shanta Bai58. Balkishan Kedia59. Ram Gopal Kedia60. Vindo Kodia61. Promodi Kedia62. Deepak Kedia63. Sarita Bai64. S.Veeraiah65. S.Suresh66. Smt. P.Suvarna67. Smt. Bala Laxmi68. Smt. Anjamma69. S.Veeresh(RRs 55 to 69 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased Respondents2,15,22,23,24 and 25 vide court order dt. 15-9-99 in CMPs. 20422/99,20424/99, 20426/99, 20428/99, 20430/99 & 20432/99)

70. P.Narasamma, W/o. Late P.Anjaiah, Occ: Housewife71. P.Vijayender, S/o. Late P.Anjaiah, Occ: Pvt. Service72. P.Ravinder, S/o. Late P.Anjaiah, Occ: Pvt. Service(RR 70 to 72 are R/o. 5-3-200, Goshamahal, Hyderabad)(RR 70 to 72 are brought on record as LRs of deceased R.51 as per courtorder dated. 5-6-09 in CCCAMP. 881/2008)

..

Respondents

..3..

The Appeal coming on for hearing upon perusing the Petition and theGrounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.Papa Reddy,Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M.Laxma Reddy, C.Subba Rao, Prabhakar,Adinarayana Raju, Srikanth Reddy, Nagaraju, Murthy, Shantilal Vyas, Advocates forthe Respondents.

CCCA.No. 21 of 1991:

(Appeal under Section 96 of CPC against the Judgment & decree of theCourt of the Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad (Temp)made in OS.No. 95/1971 dt. 04-06-1990)

Between:

1. Radheshyam, S/o. Bajaranglal

2. Hari Ram, S/o. Bajranglal (Died per LRs A12 to 16)

3. Kashi Pershad, S/o. Muralidhar (Died per LRs A5 to 11)

4. Vishwambar Lal, S/o. Muralidhar

5. Smt. Shanta Bai

6. Balakishan Kedia

7. Ramgopal Kedia

8. Vinod Kedia

9. Pramod Kedia

10. Deepak Kedia

11. Saritha Bai

(Appellants 5 to 11 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased A3 videcourt order dt. 11-4-2000 in CMP. 6147/2000)12. Smt. Panna Bai, W/o.Late hari Ram, D.No. 19-5-10/2, Bahadurpura,Hyderabad

13. Rajesh Kedia, S/o. Late Hari Ram, D.No. 19-5-10/2, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad

14. Vijay Kedia, S/o. Late Hari Ram, D.No. 19-5-10/2, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad.15. Suraj Kumar Kedia, S/o. Late Hari Ram, D.No. 19-5-10/2, Bahadurpura,Hyderabad.

16. Kavitha Agarwal, W/o. Goverdhan Agarwal, D/o. Late Sri Hari Ram, D.No. 21-2-484, Mattikashare, Charkaman, Hyderabad.

(Appellants 12 to 16 are brought on record as LRs of deceased 2[nd] Appellantas per court order dated. 14-9-2010 made in CCCAMP. 449/10)

...Appellants

AND

Sri Mallikahrjuna Swamy Temple, Known as Mallanna Deval, Bondilguda, rep. byS.Mallaiah, Secretary of Mallanna Temple Committee, Hyderabad.(Dismissed for default against SR vide court order dt. 31-12-01)(Other Defendants are not the necessary parties to this appeal)

..

Respondents

The Appeal coming on for hearing upon perusing the Petition and theGrounds filed herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T.S.Anand, Advocatefor the Appellants and of Sri Adinarayana Raju, Advocate for the Respondent, theCourt made the following

ORDER:

“ The defendants in O.S.No.95 of 1971 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are the appellants herein.The appellants are challenging the Judgment and Decree, dated 04-06-1990, byand under which the suit of the plaintiff-temple to declare the title andpossession over the suit schedule property, consisting of 10 acres dry land inSy.No.15 of Bondalaguda village, and for consequential injunction restrainingthe appellants-defendants from carrying out any constructions on the suitschedule property, was decreed.

..4..

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as under:- The plaintiff-temple is the owner of the suit schedule property and is inpossession and enjoyment of the same. The 7[th] defendant initiated proceedings under Sec.145 Cr.P.C., in M.C.No.17 of 1968 on the file of the IIMagistrate, City Criminal Courts against the plaintiff and others. The SHO,Kamatipura Police Station also filed M.C.No.24 of 1968 before the same courtagainst the plaintiff and the defendants herein, in which it was clearly statedthat the plaintiff was in possession of the suit land paying the taxes. However, during the pendency of the same, the defendants trespassed andoccupied some portion of the suit schedule property and trying to constructbuildings in the said land. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and to evictthe defendants from the portion occupied by them and to grant perpetual injunction.

3. The defendants No.1, 2 and 4 have filed their common writtenstatement contending that the suit schedule property is not the temple landand that the plaintiff is not the owner and possessor. It is admitted about theproceedings initiated by the 7[th] defendant, in which the learned Magistrateheld that the 7[th] defendant is in possession of the disputed property and theplaintiff or the other respondents therein were restrained from interfering withthe possession and enjoyment of the said land. It is contended that the 1[st]defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the unsurveyed land ofMakta Mame Hameeda of Bondalguda village to an extent of Ac.5-00, which isevident from pahanies of 1953 onwards. It is further alleged that Sy.No.15 ofBondalguda village, measuring 10 acres is quite different from the land of the1[st] defendant.

4. Defendant No.7 filed a separate written statement denying the title andpossession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. It is further statedthat the proceedings initiated by this defendant under Section 145 of Cr.P.C.,ended in favour of this defendant. It is stated that the suit land is in Sy.No.5 ofMakta Mame Hameeda and it belongs to Paigha estate from whom this defendant got patta dated 13[th] Maher, 1334 F. of Tahsil and DistrictShamshabad of Paigah Estate Asmanjahi and since then he is in possessionand enjoyment of the said land. The total area of the land is Ac.16-19 gts.,falling on both sides of the road leading to Zoological Park from old bridge ofHyderabad city. It is further stated that this defendant is the true owner and isin possession of the suit land and not trying to construct anything in the saidland. The suit land is not at all in Sy.No.15 at Bondalguda but it is in Sy.No.5of Makta Mame Hameeda admeasuring Ac.6.37 gts., only. Hence, pray fordismissal of the suit.

5. The other defendants, filed separate written statements and denied that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit land and in possession ofthe same. They claim that they are independent and bona fide purchasers ofdifferent extents and enjoying their respective lands accordingly. Some of thedefendants admit that they have applied for permission to raise constructionsin their respective lands and the same is within the knowledge of the plaintiff. It is further contended by some of the defendants that they are even residingin their respective houses constructed by them and paying taxes to theGovernment from time to time.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed thefollowing issues and additional issues:-

1) Whether Mallaiah is the Secretary of the plaintiff temple, as perorder in I.A.No.547 of 1989, dated 16-3-1990? (later, the same wasrecasted as under):-order in I.A.No.547 of 1989, dated 16-3-1990? (later, the same wasrecasted as under):- Whether Mallaiah, who has signed the plaint is competent to file the suiton behalf of the temple?on behalf of the temple?

2) Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and whetherthe plaintiff is entitled to be put in possession of the suit property afterevicting the defendants?the plaintiff is entitled to be put in possession of the suit property afterevicting the defendants?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to perpetual injunction restrainingthe defendants from carrying out any constructions on portions of thesuit property?the defendants from carrying out any constructions on portions of thesuit property?

..5..

4) Whether the suit property is a part of Makta Mame Hameeda and fNo.1 is the owner and possessor of it?

5) Whether the suit property is in Sy.No.5 of Makta Mame Hameedaand patta was granted in favour of the 7[th] defendant and whether is thetrue and rightful owner and is in possession of the suit property?

6) Whether the 10[th] defendant is not a necessary party to the suit?7)Whether the defendants 1, 2 and 4 acquired title to a plot of land measuring 3383 Sq.Yds., as purchasers from Syed Hussain and 3[rd]defendant under sale deeds on 15-10-1970? And were in possession ofthe same and constructed any building?

(Issue No.7 in respect as follows: Whether defendants No.4, 9, 17, 18, 22,23, 24, 26, 28, 29, 50, 52, 53 and 55 have acquired title to the plotspurchased by them from D.1 or her vendees?

8) Whether the 9[th] defendant is a bona fide purchaser of 2391.55

Sq.Yds.?

9) To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

Additional Issues:

1) Whether the alienations pleaded by D.52 to D.55 in their favour inwritten statement are true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?written statement are true, valid and binding on the plaintiff?

2) Whether the plaintiff has no title or possession over the propertiesclaimed by D.52 to D.55?claimed by D.52 to D.55?

3) Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties and cause ofaction?action?

7. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 and 2 wereexamined and Exs.A.1 to A.63 were marked. On behalf of the defendants,D.Ws.1 to 18 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.172 were marked. Apart fromthat Exs.X.1 and X.2 were also marked.

8. After hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the oral anddocumentary evidence, by the impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 4-6-1990, the learned Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, held allthe issues in favour of the plaintiff and accordingly decreed the suit. Hence,the appeal.

9. During the course of hearing the appeal, the learned counsel appearingfor both the appellants/defendants and the respondents/plaintiffs have beenelaborately heard. The oral and documentary evidence as also the impugnedJudgment has been perused.

10. The core issue that needs to be resolved between the parties, whichhas been pending for nearly four decades, is about the identity of the propertyin dispute. The plaintiff claim that the suit land admeasuring about 10 acres issituated in Sy.No.15 of Bondalguda village and it belongs to the MallikarjunaSwamy temple. Defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 claim the same land to be the un-surveyed land in Makta Mame Hameeda village. The other contestingDefendant No.7 claims that the suit land is in Sy.No.5 of Makta MameHameeda village. Therefore, it is necessary to localize and identify the suitschedule property to find out as to where actually the suit land is situated.

The proper way of resolving the dispute of such nature will be to getdemarcation of the respective properties through the Department of Surveyand Land Records.

11. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.390 of 1973for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner and by its order dt. 03.09.1973,the trial Court allowed the same and appointed Sri P.V.Ramana Rao, Advocateas Commissioner with directions to prepare a sketch of the property claimedby the plaintiffs; to prepare separate sketch for the properties claimed by thecontesting defendants; to prepare a combined sketch for Sy.No.15 ofBondalguda village and Sy.No.5 of Makta Mame Hameeda village; and to pointout as to in which survey number the properties claimed by the respectiveparties are situated. The learned Advocate-Commissioner inspected the suitland after taking the measurements in the presence of both the Advocates andthe parties and with the assistance of the Village Patwari, prepared andsubmitted the report on 09.04.1974. The learned Advocate-Commissionerconcluded that the suit land is in Sy.No.15 of Bondalguda village and thatMakta Mame Hameeda village is on the eastern side of Miralam Tank road andthat Sy.No.5 of Makta Mame Hameeda village cannot be the suit land.

..6..

..6..

12. Defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 12 to 15 filed their objections on 6.7.1974. Thereafter, the defendants filed I.A.No.1000 of 1988 for the purpose of settingaside the earlier report of the Commissioner and to appoint the SurveyorCommissioner of the Department of Settlement and Land Records todemarcate and locate Sy.No.15 of Bondalguda village and to actually locatethe land situated in Makta Mame Hameeda village. The learned trial Judge hasdismissed the said application on 22.10.1982. Aggrieved by the said order, the1[st ]defendant filed CRP No.3915 of 1982 and by an order dt. 8.9.1986 the HighCourt has dismissed the said CRP observing that the trial Court can as wellconsider the objections filed by the respective parties and arrive at aconclusion regarding the correctness of the report of the Commissioner andthe binding effect of such report. The High Court further observed that theparties are at liberty to sustain the objections raised by them.

13. The learned trial Judge, as could be noticed from the Judgment, hasnot taken into consideration the objections filed by the defendants. Theoriginal report of the Advocate-Commissioner appears to have beenmisplaced and therefore, during the course of trial a certified copy of thereport has been filed and marked as Ex.A-44. The Advocate-Commissioner issaid to have appended nearly 20 enclosures to his original report, and thesame are found to be missing. The Advocate-Commissioner Sri P.V.RamanaRao could not be examined during the course of trial, since he died aftersubmitting the report. The learned Judge observed that it is no doubt truethat the Advocate-Commissioner is not examined in Court as he expired aftersubmitting his report; and that the report of the Advocate-Commissionerforms part of the suit record and the Court can look into and rely upon thesame for coming to a just conclusion in the suit. It is apparent that eventhough substantial objections were raised about the report of the Advocate-Commissioner, the same has not been adverted to.

14. During the course of hearing of the appeal, the learned counselappearing for the appellants submitted that it is a fit case where an Advocate-Commissioner need to be appointed afresh by the Appellate Court so as tocompletely and effectively adjudicate the controversy, which has beenpending for decades. It is submitted that once the localisation of the land hasbeen made, virtually no controversy remains since neither of the parties areclaiming rights over the lands, which are claimed by the opposite party. Theplaintiffs claim that the temple is situated in Sy.No.15 of Bondalguda village,admeasuring about 10 acres. Some of the defendants say that the suit land ispart of the un-surveyed land of Makta Mame Hameeda village whereas anotherdefendant says that it is part of Sy.No.5 of Makta Mame Hameeda village. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for theappellants relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Praga Tools Corporation Ltd. Mahboobunissa Begum[[1]]. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India issued similar directions that it should beopen to the trial Court to get the land surveyed either by appointing a lawyer,who is well-versed or by appointing a higher officer of the Survey Department,preferably Deputy Director, Survey and Settlement Department or anindependent agency, having expertise to survey, and after the report wassubmitted the Hon’ble Supreme Court took the same into consideration andother material on record and disposed of the case on 4.5.2001.

15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the saidsubmission contending that at this belated stage appointment of Advocate-Commissioner afresh, more particularly in view of the fact that the trial Courthas earlier rejected the request to appoint a second Advocate-Commissioner,cannot be acceded to.

16. Having considered the material on record, the rival submissions, and inorder to resolve the controversy, I am of the opinion that an Advocate-Commissioner can be appointed afresh pending disposal of this appeal.

..7..

17. In Chukka Venkatadri & another vs. Mallavarapu Mahalakshmamma[[2]]this Court observed that the Appellate Court has the power to issuecommission for local inspection in the same manner in which the trial Courtcan do.

18. Even though the attempt made by the defendants to get the secondAdvocate-Commissioner was negatived, but the facts and circumstances ofthe case in hand are such that there is every need to get the land localisedwith the help of the concerned authorities. The learned Advocate-Commissioner could not be examined in view of his death, and his originalreport is misplaced and the Certified copy of the same is marked as Ex.A-44,and nearly 20 enclosures are said to have been appended to his report arealso misplaced. The defendants have filed objections to the said report of the Advocate-Commissioner, which have not been considered.

19. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the otherissues and questions involved and canvassed, I am of the opinion that specificdirections can be given to the trial Court and to submit the material to thisCourt for disposal of these appeals. Therefore, the following directions areissued:

(i) The trial Judge i.e., Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad shall appoint an Advocate-Commissioner for the purpose of takingthe measurements and to locate and identify the suit land as to whether thesuit land is part of Sy.No.15 of Bondalguda village; whether it is part of un-surveyed land of Makta Mame Hameeda village; or whether it is part of Sy.No.5 of Makta Mame Hameeda village;

(ii) The learned trial Judge can also issue directions to theconcerned authorities of Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records torender assistance to the Advocate-Commissioner.

(iii) The learned Judge shall fix the remuneration of the Advocate- Commissioner to be paid by the appellants herein;

(iv) It is also made clear that the learned trial Judge is at liberty to record the evidence of the said Advocate-Commissioner, the surveyor eitheron the request of the parties or even suo motu depending upon the facts andcircumstances;

(v) The learned trial Judge also may issue necessary and suitable directions to the Advocate-Commissioner to take into consideration the titledeeds, which may be produced before him.

(vi) The parties are at liberty to file the work memos, if any, and assist the Advocate-Commissioner in all respects; and

(vii) The learned trial Judge is directed to carry out these directionsand submit his report/remarks along with the report of the Advocate-Commissioner and the other connected material evidence and record, whichmay be required in this regard, within a period of four months from the date ofreceipt of this order.

20. The parties and their advocates are directed to appear before the trialCourt on 01.04.2014. Meanwhile, the Registry is directed to transmit theoriginal records duly indexed along with the copy of this order.

The Registry is further directed to post these matters for furtherhearing, after receipt of the report from the trial Court.”

REGISTRAR

ASSISTANT

// TRUE COPY //

for ASSISTANTREGISTRAR

..8..

To

1. The Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri M.Papa Reddy, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

3. One CC to Sri M.Laxma Reddy, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

4. One CC to Sri C.Subba Rao, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

5. One CC to Sri Prabhakar, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

6. One CC to Sri Adinarayana Raju, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

7. One CC to Sri Srikanth Reddy, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

8. One CC to Sri Murthy, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

9. One CC to Sri Shantilal Vyas, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

10. One CC to Sri T.S.Anand, Advocate, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.(2 to 10 by Spl. Messenger with a direction to appear before the trialcourt on 01-04-2014 along with their parties)(2 to 10 by Spl. Messenger with a direction to appear before the trialcourt on 01-04-2014 along with their parties)

11. The Section Officer, A.F.Section, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.

12. One spare copy.

SAH

HIGH COURT

MSKJ

DATED: 13-03-2014

NOTE: POST THESE MATTERS FOR FURTHER HEARING AFTER RECEIPT OF THE REPORT FROM THE TRIAL COURT

ORDER

CCCA.NOS. 6 & 21 OF 1991

DIRECTION

DRAFTED BY: SAHAPPROVED BY: DRAFTED ON: 24-03-2014

HIGH COURT

MSKJ

DATED: 13-03-2014

NOTE: POST THESE MATTERS FOR FURTHER HEARING AFTER RECEIPT OF THE REPORT FROM THE TRIAL COURT

[1]2001(6) SCC 2382001(6) SCC 238

[2]2006(3) ALD 87

DIRECTION