Syed Badruddin v. Syed Moinuddin
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:3499 OF 2d23 Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated 20.09.2023 passed in l.A.No. 326 ot 2021 in O.S.No. 3420 of 2019 on the file of the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Betlyeen:
Syed Badruddin, S/o Late Syed Sharfuddin, Aged aboutT4 years, Occ Retd. Government Servant, R/o H.No. 16-9-873; Old Malakiet, Hyderabad, Telangana State.
Qyed Qamruddin, S/o Late Syed Sharfuddin, Aged about 68 years, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 4-1-62, Hayathnagar. - Ranga Reddy District. Represented by the GPA Holder Syed Mohammed Asim, 'S/o Syed Badruddin, Aged about 37 years, Occ Service, Rt/o H.No. 16-9-873, Dhobi Galli, Old Malakpet, Hyderabad.
...PETIT]ONERS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 2 AND Syed Moinuddin, S/o Late Syed Sharfuddin, Aged about 68 years, Occ Business, R/o H. No. 17-9- 1281112, Kunnaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad, T.S ...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
2. Shakera Begum, D/o Late Syed Sharfuddin, Wo Late Dr. Mohammed Basheer Khan, Aged about 66 years, Occ Household, R/o. H.No. 17-91281112, Kurmaguda, Saidabad, Hyderabad. T. S.
3. Nazeera Banu, Wo Late Syed lqbal, Aged about 73 years, Occ Household. R:/o H.No. 18-8-2421N35/2, MoinBagh, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad.
4. Syed Maqbool Ahmed, S/o Late Late Syed Private service. Rl/o H.No. 18-8-2421N3512 Hyderabad.
5. Ayesha Parveen, Wo Khaja Moinuddin, D/o Late Syed lqbal, Aged about 35 years, Occ Household, Rl/o H.No. 18-8-2421N3512, MoinBagh, Edi Bazar, Hyderabad.
lqbal, Aged about 39 years, Occ MoinBagh, Edi Bazar, ...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 3 to 6 l.A. NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under section 1 51 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cou( may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in os No. 3420 ot 201g-on the file oi the XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Couh, Hyderabad. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2023 Petitlon under section 1s1 of cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in. lupport of the pltiiion, the High court may-ue pleased to permit the General power of Attorney Holder to prisecute tne bnp No. 3499 of 2023 and in all miscellaneous petitions ln the civil Revision petition on behalf of the petitioner.
Counsel for Petitioners : Sri CH. RAVINDER Counsel for Respondents : None appeared The Gourt made the following: ORDER
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY C.R.P. No. 3499 of 2o23 ORDER:
Heard Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2.
The instant civil revision petition has been frled assailing the order dated 2O.O9.2023 passed in I.A.No.326 of 2O2l in O.S.No.3420 of 2079 by the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
3.
Vide impugned order dated 20.09.2023, the Court below has rejected the I.A., filed by the petitioners herein under Order VII Rule 11 R/w Section 151 of the C.P.C., seeking for the rejection of want of action.
4.
A perusal of the record would clearly indicate that the petitioners ald the respondents intbrse are sibiings and the relationship is not in dispute. The suit filed is for partition. In the suit, it was said that the plaintiff within the family had made an effort for partition of the suit property, but was refused. It is this t I observation in the suit which has prompted the , t petitioners/defendants in filing the objection under Order VII Rule 11 R/w Section 151 of the C.P.C., saying that the cause of action has not been specifically disposed. The very fact is that the relationship interse between the parties are not in dispute and the parties being
members of the same family except the fact that there is a specific averment in the suit that the plaintiff had requested the family members for a partition which was refused. Now whether there was any request made by the petitioners, whether there was refusal on the part of the defendants are all matter of evidence and mix question of fact and law so as to determine the cause of action. 5.
However, the said facts, more particularly, taking note of the fact that the present is a petition under Article 22T of the Constitution of India, where it is only the supervisory jurisdiction which needs to be exercised subjecting the impugned order to judicial review. This Court is of the firm view that there does not appear to be any jurisdictional error nor any perversit5r on the part of the Court below in passing the said order.
6.
The Civil Revision Petition, thus being devoid of merits, deserves to be and is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall Consequently, stand closed.
SD'SMT. V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR v::-- SECTION OFFICER To, //TRUE COPY'/
1. The XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad
2. One CC to Sri. CH. RAV|NDER, Advocate tOpUCl
3. Two CD Copies.
Njb
HIGH COURT PSK, J DATED:1511212023 € ,i oA.
0I JIlt 2[2{
ORDER
t osspt't CRP.No.3499 of 2023 RF^IECTING THE CIVIL RTVISION PETITION