Nerallapally Sandeep Reddy v. M. Renuka Devi
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 HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P-SAI\4 KOSHY I CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3918 OF 2024 I Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the order daled O4-12-2024 passed Transfer O.P.No.B9 ol 2O24 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District At L.B Nagar and dismiss the Transfer O P No.B9 of 2024. I Between Nerallapall Business, 500039.
y Sandeep Reddy, S/o Krishna Reddy, Age. 40 years, Occ. Rlo. H.No. 2-1-4si 6l B, Surya Nagar Colony, Uppal, HyderabadI ... Respondent No.3/Petitioner AND lvl. Renuka Devi, Wo Y. Ranga Swamy, Aged 53 years, Occ. Teacher. Y. Ranga Swamy, S/o Rangappa, Age.57 years, Occ. Business, Both are Residing at. H.No.5-2i 1 6iA, Plot No 6/1 , Phase- l, lMythri Nagar, Madinaguda' Ranga Reddy District-500049.
... Petitioners/Respondents
3. Kondapalli Durga Devi, Wo Lakshmi Narasimha Rao, Aged about 64. years, occ. Housewifb. R/o. Flat No.602, H.No.3-6-2901 B-1, Sai Tirumala Apartments, Hyderguda, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad-500029.
4. Mudigonda Radhika, W/o Phaneesh, Aged about 57 years, Occ..Housewife, R/o. Flat No. 202, Plot No. 62, Jyothi Mahal, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad500072.
5. The Greater Hyderabad Muncipal Corporatron (GHMC), Rep. by its Commissioner, Tank Bund Road. Hyderabad.
6. The Greater Hyderabad Muncipal Corporation (GHMC), Rep. by its Zonal Commissioner, Serilingampally Zone, Ranga Reddy District.
7. The City Planner, Circle No 20, GHMC, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.
8. The Assistant City Pianner, Circle No 20, GHMC, Serilingampally, Ranga Reddy District.
9. The Executive Engineer, Serilingampally Circle-2O, GHMC, Serilingampally. (Respondents No. 3 to I are not Necessary parties to this Revision) Respondents
lA NO: '1 oF 2024 Petition under Section 151.CpC praying that in the circumslances stated in ll:- -iffiqiyi, fited in supporr of the p"ii'oii, ih" uisn cou,t may be pteased to suspend the operation of the order aut a oq-ii-202i in trrn"rur o.p No. Bg of 2024 on the fire of the principar Drstrict anJ ser.i-o-n-, Luag" Ranga Reddy District At L.B. Nagar and pass.
Counsel for the petitione(s):SRl. Katika Ravinder Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: M,Ramakanth The Court made the foltowing: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY Civil Revision Petition No.3918 of 2024 ORDER:
Heard Mr.Katika Ravinder Reddv. learned counsel lor the pctitioner and Mr.M.Ramakanth, learncd counsel lor the respondents. Perused the material availablc on record. 2, The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed bv thc petitioners under Article 227 of tl-re Constitution ol India assailing the order dated 04.12.2024 passed in Tr.O.P.No.B9 of 2024 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy I District at L.B.Nagar (lor short 'thc trial court') 3.
Vide the said rmpugnecl order, the learned Principal District Judge has clubbed O.S.No.-1O4 of 2018 pending before the II Additional .Junior Civil .Judgc, Ranga Redd,r' District at Kukatpally, to the court of VI Additional Senior Civil .Iudge, Ranga Redd1, District at Kukatpall-r.
4, The O.S.No.404 ol 2018 is a suiL lirr lrcrpetual injr-rnction and there is also an interirn ordcr u hich has bcen affirmed uptill the stagc ol High Court. O.S.No.l60 of 2024 is a declarativc suit r,r,ith a pra-yer for recovery of possession.
j S.
The two suits have been filed by the two parties pertaining to the same suit schedule propertv and the dispute in the two suits also seems to be bet.,r.een the same parties. 6.
Accordingll , the learned District Judge has translerred the suit pending before the court of tl Additional Junior Cir,'il Judge to the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, to hear rhe tri o matters together.
7.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no necessity for the transfer to be made at this juncture, particularly, when the earlier suit that rn,as filed in the year 2018 i.e., the suit for perpetual injunction i.e., O.S.No.4O4 of 2018 has reached its fag end and just left for the final hearing and judgment of the case to be passed and which could have been decided ."vithin a short period of time. Whereas the other suit filed by' the respondents i.e., suit fbr declaration is at its preliminary stage ri here the petitioners have liled a petition lor rejection of plaint on the ground of it being barred b), limitation. Therefore, the impugned order of transfer of the trvo suits to one court be set aside.
8.
Upon due consideration of the entire facts and clrcumstances ol the case, considering the fact that the petitioners alrcadl have an interim protection in O.S.No..lO4 oi
Y 20 l8 restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession of the petitioners and also considering the fact that the dispute primarily seems to be betu'een the same parties in respect of the same suit schedule propert)" in order to avoid further complications and conflicting decisions' the decision of the Principal District Judge transferring thc tu'o suits together be heard by one of the judge cannot be found lault with' g, As regards the objection of the petitioners that they have raised of rejection of plaint for being barred by limitation' this Court is of the considered opinion that let the same be decided on its own merits, in accordance w1th lail ' b1' the trial court and after the rcjection of the same, appropriatc recourse u'ould be left open to be taken in accordance u'ith latl' b-v erther of the parties.
lO. Accordingly, the instant Civrl Rerlision Petition at this juncture stands rejectcd.
Consequently, miscellaneous pctitior-rs pending' il any' shall stand t l,.,sed.
Sd/- P. PADMANA BHA REDDY ASSI T NT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFIC ER //TRUE COPY// To, The Principal District.and Sessions Judge Ranga Reddy District at L B t ta-gar. (wiih records if anY) One CC to SRl Katika Ravinder Reddy' Advocate IOPUCI 2.
One CC to SRl M Ramakanth' Advocate [OPUC] q'xTwo CD Copies
-__---.-!E HIGH COURT DATED:2011212O24 :f+,tE S /4.
* (f1 11 FEB ZW '!
t, r ( .
hp.sn4lCHEO
ORDER
CRP.No.391B of 2OZ4 It CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS REJECTED qlaS lil til tit