Nazeer Mohiuddin v. Rekulapally Uma Rani

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO 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 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 Town And District ...PETITIONER AND

1. Rekulapally Uma Rani, Wo Linga Reddy, aged about 52 years, Occ: Housewife

2. Rekulapally Linga Reddy, S/o Narsa Reddy,Aged about 56 years, Both are N-o 17-4-2211, Priyadarshini Nagar, Near Maitry Vanam, Siddipet Town and District ...RESPONDENTS l.A NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order of interim suspension of the order dated 2110612022 passed in CMA.No.10 of 2019 by the Principal District Judge at Siddipet, pending disposal of the above Civil 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 KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PtrTITION NO.21 J 5 OF )-)2i', ORDER:

'lhis )ivil Revision Petition is directed agzrnst the order dated 21.0>.2022 in C.M.A.No.tO ol 2019 passe(l by the Principal Di strict Judge at Siddipet reversing tht: ordr-'r passed in LA.No.4Or of 2018 in O.S.No.12O of 2O18 on ihe tile of the Court of th: Principal Junior Civil Judge at Siiclditrret dated 16.O7.20t9.

2.

The pt titioner herein filed O.S.No.120 of 2O 18 for relief of perpetual ir junction and the in the said suit, he also held I.A.No.405 ol 2018 seeking temporary injunction in r,:spect of the suit prol,erty i.e. Ac.0.03 gts situated in Surv:1' No.55/A of Ponnala Vill rge, Siddipet Mandal and District, .vith specified boundaries.

3.

The trirl Court, having taken note of the c< ntents of the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.4OS of 2018 an(l the counter filed by the rr.spondents herein, by simply making r reference to the documen Ls marked on either side i.e. Exs.P. I to P.29 on behalf ol the petitioner herein and Exs.R. 1 to R.5 on behalf of the respondt nts herein, without discussing th e na.ture of documents ar d the contents therein etc., passed ar unrr:asoned

C.R.P.NO.21 15 0F 2022 order stating that it appears to the Court that the petitioner is able to establish pima facie case in his favour and the balance of convenience also tilts in his favour i.e. in favour of tl-re petitioner herein. Absolutely, no reasons were furnished for arriving at such conclusion by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents herein filed C.M.A.No.10 of 2O19 and the same was allowed by the lower appellate Court by the order under revision, dated 21.06.2022.

4.

The lower appellate Court considered the matter in elaborate and considered the documents that are marked on behalf of either side, discussed about the title of both the parties etc. Hence, this Court is not inciined to interfere with the order under revision in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 ol the Constitution of India.

5.

The lower appellate Court has not chosen to discuss the aspect of possession as on the date of filing of the suit, which is the crucial and paramount consideration in the matters of grant or refusal to grant a temporary injunction. No doubt, the lower appellate Court discussed the matter in detail but failed to record any finding with regard to pima facte possession over the subject property as on the date of hling of the suit. From the claim that is being made by the petitioner herein as well as the

MSri,J C.R.P.N, ).21 1 s OF 2022 respondents it is prima facie noticed that troth t t-re perrties are claiming florr of title from the very same original ru,ner/owners and there is no much dispute in that regard. Bu thel' claimed to have acqt ired the property at different points c f rime. There is no hndir g or discussion with regard to identihr of the property 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 appellate Court. In th: absence of any dispute about the o -igineLl owner, the questior that would fall for consideration is atrout the identity of th ) property that is being claimed by th( petir-ioner as well 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 as well as the a1 pellate Court.

6.

The trj al Court shall look into the aspec t of framing specific issur s with regard to possession and identitl/ of the property thal is being claimed by the parties an I if the trial Court feels that such issues are required to be fraroed, the trial Court may frz me such issues and then proceed to conduct trial. 7.

Subject to the above observations, the Civil Ilevision Petition is dis nissed with a further direction to the .rial Oourt to dispose of th: suit, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a peri< d of six (6) months from the date ol receipt of a

c.R.P.NO.2115 0F 2022 copy of this order without being influenced by any of the observations made either in this order or in the order under revls10n.

There shal1 be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed. Sd/. P. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSIST EGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTI N OFFICER 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.

Nib \ - -,.

\.X I

HIGH COI,lRT DATED:3(111212022 c\5i II P-\ L!

Cia

ORDER

CRP.No.2115 of 2022 DISMISSIN ] THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIO].] WITHOUT (]OSTS o*G 30\'