Sadak v. M.A. Sattar @ Abdul Sattar

I I .

[ 32s3 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3521 OF 2023 Petition Under Article 227 of the constitution of lndia against the Order passed in 1.A.No.261 ot 2022 in OS.No.169 ol 2021 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed.

Between:

1. Sadak, S/o. late Mahaboob Patel, Aged. 84 years, Occ. Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.9-13-116/1, Rafath Bagh, Beside Guru Nanak Dev College, Mailur Road, Bidar Town and District, Karnataka State - 585 402.

2. Hameeda Begum, Wo. Sadak (died per LRs Petitioner Nos.3 to 6)

3. Mohd. Khursheed, S/o. Sadak, Aged. 61 years, Occ. Business,

4. Mohd. Jamsheed, S/o. Sadak, Aged. 58 years, Occ. Business,

5. Malan Bee, Wio. Zameer Patel, Aged. 53 years, Occ. Household,

6. Naziya Begum, Wo. Md. Nawab Sab, R/o. H.No.9-13-116i1, Rafath Bagh, Beside Guru Nanak Dev College, Mailur Road, Bidar Town and District, Karnataka State - 585 402.

7. Mohd. Hasnuddin @ Babu patel, S/o. late Mahaboob Patel, Aged. 66 years, Occ. Agriculture,

8. Mohd. Dawood, S/o. Mohd Hasnuddin @ Babu Patel, Aged. 26 years, Occ. Agriculture, Both are R/o. Athimyal Village, Manoor Mandal, Sangareddy District.

...Petitioner/Defendant Nos.1 to 4

AND '1. M.A. Sattar @ Abdul Sattar, S/o. late Mahaboob Patel, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Athimyal Village, Manoor Mandal, Sangareddy District. ...RespondenUPlaintiff

2. Yaseen Khan, S/o. Rouf Khan, Aged. 66 years, Occ. Agriculture,

3. Anees Khan, S/o. Yaseen Khan, Aged. 36 years, Occ. Agriculture,

4. Javeed Khan, S/o. Yaseen Khan, Aged- 31 years, Occ. Agriculture,

5. Jamsheed Khan, S/o. Yaseen Khan, Aged.26 years, Occ. Agriculture, All are R/o. Chikli Village, Aurad Taluqa, Bidar District, Karnataka State.

6. Smt. Qamar Pasha, Wo. Afsar Miya, Aged. 66 years, R/o. H.No.1-13'1, Raipally Village, Aurad Taluqa, Bidar District, Karnataka State.

..Respondents lA NO: 'l 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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.169 of 2021 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at Narayankhed, pending disposal of the present CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. Y ASHOK RAJ Counsel for the Respondents:

The Court made the following: ORDER

w THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRTYADARSINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3521 of2023 ORDER:

By way of this civil revision petition, defendant Nos. I to 4 in O.S. No. 169 of 2021 challenge the inaction of the learned Junior Civil Judge at Narayankhed in disposing of I.A. No. 261 of 2022 in O.S. No. 169 of 2021.

2.

Respondent No. t herein filed the suit in O.S. No. 169 of 2O21 against the defendants, seeking partition of the suit schedule properties into proportionate shares and to allot 2/8th share to the plaintiff, 2/8rh share to defendant Nos. l and 3 each, l/Sth share each to defendant Nos. 5 to 8 and l/8th share to defendant No.9 for putting the plaintiff in exclusive possession of 2/8tt' share. Pending the suit, the revision petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 261 of 2022 under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 15f C.P.C. to reject the plaint rnter alia contending that the cause of action mentioned by the plaintiff is wrong and suppressive in nature inasmuch as partition, in respect of the suit schedule properties, took place among one Kursheed song of Sadal Patel, Hameeda Begum wife of Sadak Patel and defendant Nos. I to 3 vide agreement of partition dated 24.06. 1996 and unless the said agreement of

1'

MCP,J cRP 352t 2023 partition is cancelled by way of declaration proceedings and also as per Mohammedan Law, since the common the ancestor namely one Mahboob Patel executed the registered sale deeds in favour of Mohammed Khursheed and defendant No. 3, no claims for partition of the suit schedule properties can be entertained.

3.

It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the revision petitioners have filed the impugned I.A. way back in March, 2022, blut so far, no orders have been passed thereon. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks a direction to the trial Court for early disposal of the I.A. 4.

Considering the limited grievance of the revision petitioners and considering the fact that the I.A. seeking rejection of the plaint is pending from March, 2022, ends of justice would be met if a direction is given to the trial Court to dispose of the said I.A. within a reasonable time. 5.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition shall stand disposed of at the admission stage directing the learned Junior Civil Judge at Narayankhed to take up I.A. No. 261 of 2022 in O.S. No. 169 of 2O2l without granting unnecessary adjournments and dispose of the same on merits as

!dMGP,J cRP 35)l 2023 J expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two (O2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, duly affording opportunity to both the parties. No costs. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed'

sDI' A','''PRASAD ASSISTANT REGI RAR //TRUE COPY// SECTIO FFICER To,

1. The Junior Civil Judge, Narayankhed ; o;;;C i" snr v nlsnor iAJ Advocate toPUCl

3. Two CD CoPies SP NS

HIGH COURT DATED:01 11212023 I $,E ST4I €'

( q f,oo [ 5 JAN 2024 o

ORDER

t i DEsP'\T CRP.No.3521 ot 2023 DISPOSING THE CRP L