Allowed

Joint Family Firm of M.C.Dhanraj and Sons, v. P.D.K.Wad

Telangana HC29 Aug 2012WA/1056/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ appeal filed by a third party decree-holder against an order restraining interference with repairing works. The High Court set aside the lower order due to suppression of material facts regarding pending possession litigation and remitted the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and matter remanded to Writ Court; liberty granted to parties.

Joint Family Firm of M.C.Dhanraj and Sons, Vs P.D.K.Wad — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NO.1056 OF 2012

¶4

DATED:29.8.2012

¶5

Between: Joint Family Firm of M.C. Dhanraj and Sons Rep. by Sri S. Mahender Kumar R/o.321, Lal Bazar Secunderabad … Appellant And

¶6

P.D.K. Wad and others … Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1056 OF 2012

¶9

JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Sri Pinaki Chandra Ghose)

¶10

This writ appeal is directed against the order dt.6.2.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P. No.865 of 2012.

¶11

Respondent No.1 herein is the writ petitioner. He filed the writ petition to declare the action of the respondents therein in interfering with the repairing works carried on by the writ petitioner in the property bearing No.53-B (new No.3-16-792/807), situated in Sy. No.14 of Trimulgherry Village, Hyderabad District, as illegal and arbitrary, and for consequential directions.

¶12

The Hon’ble Single Judge, on considering the matter, disposed of the writ petition directing that the petitioner should not raise any construction over the aforesaid property; he might, however, do repairing works. In the case the petitioner want to raise additional construction, he had to obtain prior permission from the competent authority. The respondents were restrained from interfering with the repairing works carried on by the petitioner. It was made clear that the petitioner should not raise any fresh construction.

¶13

Aggrieved by the said order of the Hon’ble Single Judge, the appellant, who is a third party to the writ petition, filed this writ appeal.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶15

It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the

¶16

petitioner suppressed the facts and hence the impugned order was passed in favour of the petitioner. He submitted that in O.S. No.3 of 1990 filed by the appellant, for delivery of possession of the land in question, the Court of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, passed a decreed in its favour and the first appeal filed by the defendants therein, being C.C.C.A. No.193 of 1999 is pending before this Court. We have also been informed that the writ petitioner filed an implead application before the Civil Court and the same was dismissed, and in the first appeal also he filed an implead application, which is pending.

¶17

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears to us that the writ petitioner suppressed the material facts before the Hon’ble Single Judge at the time of hearing of the writ petition. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge and remit the matter to the Writ Court. The writ petition is restored to its file and it may be listed before the appropriate Court. Liberty is given to the appellant to file application before the writ court seeking its impleadment and to file counter. Liberty is also given to the writ petitioner to file additional affidavit, if he so chooses.

¶18

The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

¶19

__________________________ PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ

¶20

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 29.8.2012 bnr

Joint Family Firm of M.C.Dhanraj and Sons, v. P.D.K.Wad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Joint Family Firm of M.C.Dhanraj and Sons, v. P.D.K.Wad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ranikreddy Mahalaksmi Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District at

Sri Koripella Sai Lashmana Rao, Vs The District Collector

Smt. Gorantla Jhansi Lakshmi Vs The District Collector, East Godavari District

C. Venkat Reddy Vs M. Srinivas

Dantuluri Venkata Ramana Raju, Vs The District Collector, Visakhapatnam

P. Jeyashree Prabhakar Vs District Educational Officer