Rukmini Bai v. Prema Bai
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERBAD
FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3503 OF 2023 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, to allow the CRP by setting aside the order passed in lA No. 783 ol 2023 in OS No. 3662 of 2023 dated 31 -'10-2023 on the file of the XX Junior Clvil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
Between:
1. Rukmlni Bai, Wo Kanyalal Yadav Aged about 61 years, Occ House wife Fl/o H. No. 14- 1- 5571211 , Mangalhat, Hyderabad
2. Parvalhi Bai, W/o Laxminarayana Yadav aged About 57 years, Occ House wife Rl/o H. No. 14- 2- 209 Shahinayatgunj, Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. Moti Bai, W/o Shanthilal Yadav Aged 44 yearc, Occ House wife R./o H. No. 14- 2- 209, Shahinayatgunj Nampally, Hyderabad.
4. Neela Bai, W/o Late Tuljaram Yadav aged about 32 years, Occ House wife Rl/o H. No. 14- 4- 233, Shahinayatgunj, Begumbazar, Hyderabad.
5. Beejall Bai Yadav, W/o Goverdhanlal Yadav Aged about 44 yearc, Occ House wife R/o H. No. 14- 5- 111, Baidwadi, Begumbazar, Nampally, Hyderabad
6. Vidya Bai, Wo Dharmaraj Yadav aged about 49 years, Occ House wife R/o H. No. 14- 1- 5291D. Mangalhat, Hyderabad.
Petitioners/Petitioners/Plaintiffs.
AND
1. Prema Bai, Wo. Dhanraj Yadav Rl/o. H. No. '14- 1- 12614, Seetharampet, Hyderabad.
2. B. Saptagiri Vas, S/o S. Bhoomaiah, Rt/o H. Noi. 14-',\- 126t4lB(Otd No. 14- 112614Pafi Seetharampet, Hyderabad. T. S.
3. The Sub- Regishar, Doodhbowli, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad. ... Respondents/Respondents/Defendants.
contd.2
lA NO: 1 OF 2023'
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 direct the 3rd respondent not to register the House property bearing Municipal H. No.'14- 1- 1261418 (Old 14- 1- 12614 part) admeasuring 80 Sq. yards situated at Seetharampet, Hyderabad in favour of the 2nd respondent or any third parties if the documents presented by the respondents 1 and 2 for registration before the 3rd respondent in the interest of justice pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Mohd Gulam Rasool, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following ORDER:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY c.R.P. No.35O3 of2023 ORDER:
Heard Mr. Mohd. Ghulam Rasool, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
2.
The instant civil revision petition has been Iiled assailing the common order dated 37.10'2023 passed in I'A'No'783 of 2023 in O.S.No.3662 of 2023 by the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, HYderabad'
3.
O.S.No.3662 of 2023 has been hled by the petitioners/ plaintiffs seeking perpetual injunction' Along with the suit, the petitioners/plaintiff had filed I'A'Nos'782 and 783 of 2023 under Order XXXX RuIe I and 2 read with Section 151 ofC.P.C.I.A.No.T82of2023waslriedseekingfortemporary injunction and I.A.No 783 of 2023 was filed seeking for a direction to respondent No.3, not to alienate the suit schedule register the sarne in favour of any third property and not to I.As., stand rejected uide common order, person. Both these dated 31.10.2023.
4.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that so far as the present civil revision petition is concerned' he is aggrieved only by the order passed in I'A'No'783 of 2023'
5.
On a query being put to learned counsel for the petitioners as regards whether there is any challenge to I.A.No.7g2 of 2023 which stands rejected by the same order dated 31. I0.2O23, he concedes that there has been no challenge to the sajd order passed in I.A.No.782 of 2023.
6. In the given factual backdrop, the ground rea.lier that emerges is that the Court below has rejected I.A.No.7g2 of 2023 uide the sarne order dated 31.10.2023 whid.; is not under challenge an5rwhere.
7 .
In the teeth of the rejection of the application for temporar5r injunction i.e., LA.No.782 of 2023, the Court below could not have a-llowed the application under Section 151 of C.p.C., passing another order restraining the respondents/defendants from alienating the property or selling the same or registering the same, which in other words would mean that by way of allowing the application, the Court below would be indirectly granting yet a,other injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. 8.
For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that no strong case has been made out calling for interference with the impugned order so far as rejection of I.A.No.783 of 2023 is concerned.
I
9.
The Civil Revision Petition thus fails and is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Sr- //TRUE COPY'
SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad'
2. The Sub- Registrar, Doodhbowli, Bahadurpura, Hyderabad'
3. One CC to SRl. MOHD GULAM RASOOL Advocate IOPUC]
4. Two CD coPies.
cvk b
, I HIGH COURT DATED:1 511212023 -( EL4 o ,, ^\^ A--lV * o u) ,c5 aa* ^o c o a)
ORDER
CRP.No.3503 of 2023 CRP is Rejected.
\