CRP/4303/2025 of Nimma Mohan Reddy Vs M. Janardhan Reddy on 20 January 2026

1.

2. J.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No. 2 M. Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Yadi Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Rl/o. Plot No. 21, Jupiter Colony, Thirumalgiri, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No. 1 Faiz Ahmed, S/o- Osman Ahmed, Aged 63 Years, Occ- Retd. Govt. Employee, Irfan Ahmed (Died), (Vide. LRs Respondent No.4-B ) Atiya Sulthana, D/o. lrfan Ahmed Mohammed Adnan Ahemed Mughni, S/o. lrfan Ahmed Zara Fatima Asna, D/o. lrfan Ahmed Mohammed Farhan Ahemed Multani S/o. lrfan Ahmed Mohammed Azan Ahmed Burhani, S/ o. lrfan Ahmed All F/ o. H. No. 20-4-335, Osman College, Kiwath, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS I CRP NO: 4303 OF 2025

lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in E.P. No. 249 of 2022 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medhchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkaigiri. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4313 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 1010912025 in l.A. No. 497 of 2024 in A.S.No.8 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Principal District and Session Judge-Cum-Family Court, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, Malkajgiri at Kushaiguda. Between: Nimma Mohan Redd Rl/o. Plot No. 8, NCL , S/o. lla Reddy, aged about 58 years, Occ- Business, nclave, Pet-Basheerabad, Medchal-Malkajgiri District v E ..PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No. 2 AND

M. Janardhan Reddy, S/o. Yadi Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Rl/o. Plot No, 21, Jupiter Colony, Thirumalgiri, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No. 1 Faiz Ahmed, S/ o. Osman Ahmed, Aged 63 Years, Occ- Retd. Govt. Employee, lrfan Ahmed (Died), (Vide. LRs Respondent No.4-B ) Atiya Sulthana, D/o. lrfan Ahmed Mohammed Adnan Ahemed Mughni, S/o. lrfan Ahmed Zara F atima Asna, D/o. lrfan Ahmed Mohammed Farhan Ahemed Multani S/o. lrfan Ahmed Mohammed Azan Ahmed Burhani, S/ o. lrfan Ahmed All Fi/ o. H. No. 20-4-335, Osman College, Kiwath, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the Judgment and Decree dated 31 .12.2018 in O.S.

J

No. 769 of 2010 on the file of the Principle Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. Counsel forthe Petitioner: Sri K. Suyodh Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No. 'l: Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I I

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD HoN'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CML REVISION PETITION NOs.4303 and .1313 OF 2025 Befs ccn Nimma Mohan Reddy, ......Petitioner and M. Janardhan Reddy and others ......Rcspondents This Court delivered the following:- COMMON OIIDER Lis involved in these revisions and the parties are one and the same. Therefore, the same were heard together and decided by way ol this common order:-

2. Heard Mr'. C.Damodar Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri K.Suyodh Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, Ieamed counsel appearing for l" respondent. Respondent Nos.2, 4 to 8 are only formal parlies.

3. These two revisions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the common order dated 10.09.2025

) passed in I.A.Nos.497 and 498 of 2024 in A.S.No.S of 2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri. LTNDISPtiTED FACTS:-

4. l" respondent herein has filed a suit vide O.S.No.769 ol 2010 against the petitioner herein, respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein lor perpetual injunction ln respect of thc agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.24 guntas ln Sy.No.573, Ac.2.16 guntas ln Sy.No.574 in total Ac.5.00 guntas situated at Old Atwal Village, Alwal Municipality, Malkaigiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The same was decreed on 31.12.2018 by the leamed Principal Senior Civil Judge at L.B.N4agar, Ranga Reddy District.

5. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 prefcred an appeal vide A.S.No.8 of 2022 challenging the said judgrnent and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. Det'endant Nos.2 and 3 filed two interlocutory applications under Order 4l Rule 33 read with Section 151 of CPC to suspend the operation of said judgment and decree dated 3l.12.2018 and under Order 4 I Rule 5 of CPC to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.249 ol 2022 in the said appeal : \ \

J t and the said applications were dismissed. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not take any steps challenging the said order and the same attained finaliry. Flowever, A.S.No.8 of 2022 pending and it is posted to 04.02.2024 for hearing.

6. The petitioner herein /Defendant.No. I did not prefer any appeal challenging the saidjudgment and'decree dated 31.10.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. However, he has fited a suit vidc O.S.No.34 of 2023 seeking d&laration that the said judgrnent and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 is not binding on him. In the said suit, he has filed I.A.No.238 of 2023 seeking suspension of the operation of said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. Learned Principal District Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District granted interim injunction order dated 24.02.2023. Subsequently, the said I.A.No.238 ol 2023 was disrnissed on 09.10.2023. Aggrieved by the said order. the petitioner herein/Defendant No. I has preferred CMA No.6l3 ol 2023 and the same is pending. Thereafter, the petitioner herein/Defendant No. I i-iied two applications vide I.A.No.497 ol 2024 under Order 4l Rule 33 read with Section 15l of CpC to suspend the operation of said judgment and decree dated 3 I . 12.20 18 and I.A.No.49 8 ol 2025 under Order 4 1 Rule 5 of CPC to stay all further proceedings in 8.P.No.249 of 2022 in the said appeal and the said applications were dismissed vide common order dated 10.09.2025. Chatlenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revisions;

7. 1't respondent/D.Hr. filed E.P.No.249 of 2022 against J.Drs. seeking execution ol the sah judgment and decree dated 3 I .12.20 18. It is pending.

8. The petitioner/Def-endant No.1 fited the aforesaid I.A.Nos.497 and 498 of 2024 contending as follows:- 1't respondent/plaintiff obtained the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 by playing fraud on the Court. 1" respondenVplaintiff himsell in the capacity of the It. agreement of sale - cum - General Power of Attorney holder, has executed a registered sale deed and thereby alienated an extent of Ac.0.20 guntas ln favour of Smt. Tadipalty Rajani, under registered sale I \ t.

l deed bearing document No.3 193 of 2009, dated 06.07.2009. l Possession has been delivered to the said Tadipally Raj ani

iv. The said sale deed was executed before filing O.S.No.769 of 2010. Therefore, the judgment and decree dated 3 I . 12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 20 l0 cannot be executed. Thus, 1" respondent/plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit suppressing the said fact and obtained said judgment and decree dated3l.12.2008 by playing fraud.

vi. l'' respondent/p laintiff claimed litle over the suit schedule property basing on agreement ol sale - cum GPA bearing document No.278l of 2007 dated 16.06.2007 and recitals of the said document contemplates that respondent No. I /plaintiff claimed title over tl.re suit schedule property basing on ROR proceedings dated 09.01.1996. The same were under challenge before this Court in W.P.No.l7539 ol 2010

wherein, vide order dated 1 8. I 1 .2013, this Court gave a clear finding that the said proceedings dated 09.01.1996 are not in existence. This Court, vide order dated 28.04.2023, suspended the pattadar passbooks issued in favour ol respondent No. liplaintiff. \/t1l. The extent claimed by the l'1 respondent/plaintiff is contradictory to the agrtelnent of salc - cum GPA. tx. On coming to know about the said fi'aud, the petitioner herein has already filed a suit O.S.No.34 of 2023 seeking declaration that the said judgment and decree is not binding on him. x He has also filed I.A.No.238 of 2023 in the said suit seeking suspension of the operation of the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.20i8. Leamed Principal District Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, granted interim injunction vide order dated 24.02.2023, subsequently, tl.re said I.A.No.238 o12023 was dismissed vide order dated 09. 10.2023 vll.

l Aggrieved by the said order, he has preferred CMA No.6 l3 ol 2023 and the same is pending. I respondent/plaintiff filed E.A.No.l64 of 2019 rn 8..P.No.249 of 2022 seeking police aid. xll During the cross-examination, respondent No. 1/ plaintifl has admitted that he has sold the land admeasuring Ac.0.20 guntas, which is part of suit schedule property in O.S.No.769 of 2010. x l. 'Ihus, the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 ol20l0 is liable to be set aside and all the lunher proceedings in E.P.No.249 of 2022 are liable to be stayed.

9. l'' respondent/plaintitT tlled counter opposing the said applications contending :-

i. The petitioner herein/Defendant No. I being the respondent in the appeal vide A.S.No.8 of 2022 pref-erred by the Defendant Nos.2 and 3, cannot seek stay of operation of judgment and decree dated i1 3 I . I 2.20 18 which has become final against him. I

't\^l .\

ii. There are no interirn orders in A.S.No.8 of 2022. Itl. He did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 20 10.

iv. He cannot pursue parallel remedies i.e. filing O.S.No.34 <ti 2023 and LA.No.338 of 2023 and the present applications. The petitioner did ho? enter into witness box rn O.S.No.769 of 2010. He has not preferred any appeal challenging the said judgment and decree and it attained finality in respect of petitioner/Defendant No. l.

vi. He cannot take plea of lraud in the present interlocutory applications. I 0. Thus, l't respondent/plaintiff/Decree Holder sought to disr.niss both the applications. 1 1 . Vide impugned order dated l0 .09.2025, learned appellate Cout dismissed both the applications holding that the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal challenging the I

judgment and decree dated,31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 and thus, he is not aggrieved by the same, he cannot plead fraud in the present applications. Therefore, the said applications filed by him are not maintainable.

12. Challenging the said common order dated 10.09.2025, the petitioner filed the present revisions. *.'

13. Sri C. Darnodar Reddy, learned Senior counse[ for the petitioner and Sri Kondapaghy Kiran Kumar, leamed counsel appearing for respondent, made their submissions extensively.

14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Chandramohan Ramchandra Patil vs. Bapu Koyappa Patil (Dead ) through L.Rs.r, Azgar Barid (Dead) by L.Rs. vs. Mazamb2, Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rabindra Kumaf, S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannatha, United tndia Insurance Ltd. vs. Rajenrlra Singhs, Ram Kumar vs, State of ' AIn zoo3 sc t7s+ 'atR zo22 sc t3o+ 'Civit.Appgt No.2'1-94 of 2022 paragraph No. t3 " r99.r ( l) scc I 5 (2ooo) 3 scc 581

'>. l0 UP6 K.D.Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.7, State of Orissa vs. Fakir Charan Sethis, Vijay Syal vs. State of Punjabe, Chairman - cum - M.D. Coal India Ltd. Vs. Ananta Sahato, Rama Chandra Singh vs. Savitri Devilr, Erstwhite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Fatima Fouzla vs. Walashan Prince n4oazzam Jah Bahadu#, this Court in K.Anjaiah vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Proh.& Exciser3.

15. Sri Kondapafthy Kiran Kumar, learned counsel for the l" respondent, placed reliance on the principle laid down by Division Bench of High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in Pratap Singh Verma vs. State of H.P.ra.

16. The aforesaid rival contentions would reveal that the petitioner hercin is Defendant No. I in O.S.No.769 of 2010. t't respondent/ ptaintiff has filed the said sdit against the petitioner herein and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property to restrain the delendants from u AIR 2022 sc 4705 ' (2008) l2 scc 481 t eln 20l5 sc :e6 '(zoo:) g scc aot 'o lzo t t; s scc t+z " (2003) 8 scc atg " AIR 1989 AP 315 t1 zozl 1tyt6 tzt rl 2016 SCC Online HP 672 \-r \

1l interfering with his possession over the suit schedule property Admittedly, the petitioner herein did not enter into witness box. Ultimately. learned Princ ipal,, Senior Civil Judge, at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Redd1, I)istrict decreed the said suit on 3 I . 12.2008 Admittedly, the petitioner herein did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment and decrecil Defendant Nos.2 and 3 pref-en'ed an appeal vide A.S.No.tl ol 2022 challenging the said .iudgrnent and decree dated-31.12.2008, they have also filed interlocutory applications seeking suspension of the operation of the said .iudgment and decree and also to stay all further proceedings in 8.P.No.249 of 2022, the same were dismissed. They did not take any steps challenging the said order. Thus, the said order attained tinatity.

17. tt is relevant to note that the petitioner herein/Defendant No. I has filed a suit vide o.S.No.848 ol 2019 (O.S.No.2030 of 2022) against the lo respondent/plaintiff seeking perpetual injunction. He also filed an application vide I.A.No.369 of 2019 for temporary injunction, pending disposal of the suit. Vide order dated 18.12.2020, leamed Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga

Reddy District, initially granted interim injunction and later modified it as status quo on contest. Chatlenging the said order dated 18. I 2.2020, the petitioner hercin/Defendant No. 1 filed appeal vide CMA No.2 ol202l . The same is pending.

18. lt is also not in dispute that during the pendency ofthe said appeal vide CMA l.io.2 of 2021 and the suit vide O.S.No.2030 ol 2022, the petitioner herein has filed a suit vide O.S.No.34 of 2023 against l" respondent hereiri/ptaintiff, T.V.Vijaya Saradhi, Smt. T.Vahini Vedatam and Tadipally Rajani, to declare Agreemenl - cum (leneral Power o1'Attomey bearing document No.278 I of 2007, sale deed bearing document Nos.2l93 of 2009, 5726 of 2019 and 5737 of 2019 and Judgment and decree dated 3 I .12.2018 in O.S.No.769 ol20l0 as null and void and not binding on him and also tbr perpetual injunction lll respect of land admeasuring Ac.3.24 guntas in Sy.No.5'l3/AA/1, Ac.5.00 guntas in Sy.No.573 and 574 situated at Old Alwat Municipality. He has also filed two applications vide I.A.Nos.237 and 238 of 2023 in O.S.No.34 of 2023 seeking temporary injunction against 1" respondent herein from alienating the suit schedule property and \

l3 for suspension of operation of judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 respectively. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri, dismissed both the applications vide common order dated 09.10.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein has also preferred an appeal vide CMA No.613 of 2023 and the same is pending.

19. 'l'hereafter, the petigioner herein has filed the aforesaid two applications vide I.A.Nos.497 and 498 ol-2024 in A.S.No.8 of 2022 seeking stay of all lurther proceedings in E.P.No.249 of 2022 and suspend the operation of judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010.

20. 'l-hus, the petitioner herein is pursuing parallel remedies in O.S.No.34 of 2023 and also in I.A.Nos.497 and 498 of 2024 in A.S.No.S of 2022

21. Adnlittedty. he has not preferred any appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2018 in O.S.No.769 of 2010. Only Defendant Nos.2 and 3 preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.8 of 2022. In the said appeal, they have also t'lled two interlocutory l4 applications seeking suspension of the said judgment and decree and to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.249 of 2022 and the same were dismissed.

22. As discussed supra, I.A. Nos. 237 and 238 of 2023 filed by the petitioner herein / Delendant No. I in O.S.No.34 of 2023 were dismissed by the trial Court on 09.10.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has tlled the aftrresaid two applications vide I.A. Nos.497 and 498 oI'2024 in A.S.No.8 of 2022. Thus, the petitioner herein is pursuing parallel remcdies. He has filed the aforesaid two interlocutory applications on dismissal of Interlocutory Applications filed by him in O.S.No.34 of 2023 and during pendency of CMA No.6l3 of 2023. [t is an abuse of process of Court. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. On consideration of the said aspects only, leamed trial Court dismissed both the applications vide irnpugned common order dated 10.09.2025.

23. With regard to the contention ol the learned Senior Counsel that 1't respondent/plaintif?Decree Holder obtained the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 in O.S.No.769 of 2010 I

--7 I l5 by playing flaud, the petitioner herein cannot plead fraud without preferring an appeal challenging the said judgment and decree. llowever, he has also filed a suit O.S.No.34 of 2023 to declare the said judgment and decree dated 31.12.2008 is not binding on him. He has to raise all these contentions in O.S.No.3 4 ol 2023 and he is a party in A.S.No.8 of 2022 and he can supplement contentions of D.2 and D.3 before the appellate Court in the said appeal. He cannot pursue parallel remeciies. It is an abuse of process of law. Upon consideration of the said aspects only, learned trial Court dismissed both the applications vide I.A.Nos.497 and 498 of 2024 filed by the petitioner herein. It is a reasoned order and well fbunded. [t does not require interference by this Court in the present revrslons.

24. The petitioner placed reliance on catena of .iudgments of the Apex Court and other High Courts, but the facts of said cases are diflerent from the facts olthe case on hand.

25. In view of the aforesaid discussion, both the Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed and are dismissed. I

l6 (' Sd/. A.H.S- GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRA //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Principal District and Session Judge-Cum-Family Court, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, Malkajgiri at Kushaiguda.

2. One CC to Sd K. Suyodh Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

3. One CC to Sri Kondaparthy Kiran Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD Copies ..,,.,"1r.i1i1[:ffi.ej:*eous petitions. if any, pending in these w I To VH,6A i I I

HIGH COURT DATED: 2010112026

ORDER

CRP.No.4303 of 2025 AND CRP.No.4313 of 2025 l4 s HE I o o I \ 0 2 rr8 2fl26 z * * DISMISSING BOTH CRP'S , ,/',9 l,o @ oU