Sri Syed Azeemuddin Ahmed v. Azeemunnisa.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2889 OF 2016 ORDER:

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is prefe against the order passed by the XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Co Hyderabad in I.A. No.1931 of 2015 in O.S. No.496 of 201 dated 01.12.20 The said I.A. was filed by the respondent-plaintiff seeking permission of Court below to construct the damaged portion of the kitchen, WC bathro pipeline and drainage pipeline in premises bearing No.16-3-802 (plain Schedule property). The suit in O.S. No.496 of 2011 was filed by respondent-plaintiff seeking declaration of title with regards both A and schedule properties. The respondent-plaintiffs sought delivery of possess only with respect to B schedule property contending that A schedule prop was already in their possession.

The petitioners-defendants did not disp possession of the respondent-plaintiff over A schedule property. application, in I.A. No.1931 of 2015, was filed to reconstruct the dama portion with respect to A schedule property, and not B schedule property wh respondents-plaintiffs seek delivery of possession. Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would sub that the direction of the Court below does not specify that repairs were sough be made to A schedule property alone. I find no merit in this submission. application filed by the petitioner, in I.A. No.1931 of 2015, specifically refer the re-construction of the damaged portion of the premises bearing No.16-3admeasuring 276 square yards equivalent to 220 square metres which matc with the A schedule of the plaint.

The submission that the respondent-plain were permitted to make repairs in the premises in B schedule property therefore, not tenable.

Sri T.S. Praveen Kumar, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would fur contend that the respondents-plaintiffs are not residing in B schedule prope the said application has been filed only to drag on proceedings; and endeavour of the respondents-plaintiffs is only to harass the petitioner herein

does not stand to reason that any repairs, which the respondents-plaintiffs s to make in the property in their possession, would cause hardship to petitioners who are, admittedly, in possession of the B schedule property alo and not "A" schedule property. The mere fact that the respondents w permitted to make construction does not prevent early hearing of the s Suffice it to make it clear that any reconstruction, which the responde plaintiffs shall undertake, shall only be with respect to A schedule prop without causing any hindrance to the premises in B schedule property under occupation of the petitioner herein. As the suit relates to the year 2011, Court below shall hear and decide the suit with utmost expedition. The CR disposed of accordingly. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall a stand dismissed. No costs.

_____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date: 24.06.2016 MRKR