Dismissed

Mogal Shamsheer Baig v. Kurva Nageswar Rao

Telangana HC26 Jun 2013CRP/482/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a civil revision petition filed to permit the amendment of a written statement in an original suit. The petitioners sought to add facts about discontinuous sale deeds regarding survey land (No. 430/B) that the respondents did not claim, leading the court to find no reason to alter the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition No.482 of 2010 is dismissed; no order as to costs.

Mogal Shamsheer Baig Vs Kurva Nageswar Rao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.482 OF 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioners herein are the defendants in O.S. No.41 of 2004. They filed I.A. No.2255 of 2009 to permit them to amend the written statement. The 1^st petitioner herein filed an affidavit and stated that due to oversight he could not instruct his counsel on the date of preparing the written statement with regard to the sale deeds executed by him after purchasing the property. He also stated that he converted the suit land into plots and disposed some of the plots. He further stated that he wanted to file C.C. of registered sale deeds bearing No.1704/ 9 6 dt.25.09.1996, 1708/96 dt.25.09.1996, 1717/96 dt.25.09.1996, 1757/96 dt.03.10.1996, 1758/96 dt.03.10.1996, 1768/96 dt.03.10.1996, 1769/96 dt.03.10.1996, 1771/96 dt.03.10.1996, 1785/96 dt.05.10.1996.

¶5

2. It appears that the petitioners on the earlier occasion filed an application to implead the purchasers and along with that application, they filed all the registered sale deeds. But the said application was dismissed on 15.09.2009, observing that the case was posted for cross examination of DW2 and no explanation has been given by the defendants for not mentioning the facts in their original written statement.

¶6

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners states that due to oversight or ignorance of the petitioners, the facts with regard to the sale deeds executed by the petitioners could not mentioned. He also submitted that the original sale deeds are in the custody of vendees.

¶7

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents/ plaintiffs are not claiming right in survey No.430/B. As

¶8

seen from the record suit schedule lands are in survey No.430/AA1, 433/AA1 and 430/AA4.

¶9

5. When the respondents are not claiming right over the lands in Survey No.430/B and admittedly the sale deeds pertains to 430/B. There appears to be no reason to permit the petitioners to amend the written statement.

¶10

6. Therefore, Having regard to the submission of the learned counsel for respondents that the respondents have no claim in survey No.430/B. I am of the view that there is no need to disturb the orders passed by the lower Court.

¶11

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶12

__________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶13

26^th June, 2013 knl

Mogal Shamsheer Baig v. Kurva Nageswar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mogal Shamsheer Baig v. Kurva Nageswar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kethavath Lalsingh, Vs Bomidika venkat Reddy

G. Malla Reddy Vs Sri Karikalavalan I.A.S.

M. Yesupadam Vs Mr. Dolaiah

Rao Prameela Rao, W/o. Rao Srinivasa Rao, Vs Visakhapatnam Dock Labour Board

J. Ravi Kumar S/o J. Labina Vs District employment Officer

G.Anitha Rani Vs B.Prasad Rao