Dismissed

P. Bala Mallesh v. Smt. Sujatha Raji Reddy

Telangana HC6 Oct 2020CRP/917/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Article 227 and Section 151 CPC, the High Court considered an application for stay of proceedings. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the dismissal of the plaint was not illegal or irregular warranting supervisory jurisdiction, as cause of action determination is a mixed question of fact and law.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.

P. Bala Mallesh Vs Smt. Sujatha Raji Reddy — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

IUE:?TY,THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER

¶3

TWo THOUSANO nnro rwerury

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.RA'ASHEKER REDDY

¶6

c I R VI IO P IO NNo: 170F2020

¶7

Petition fired under Articre 227 0f the constitution of India, aggrieved by order dared 30-01-2020 in I.A.No.1o+s or zoiS in o.i.rio.rze of 2018 on the fire of the Court of thell Additionar senior civir Judll corii'iln.oirtrict, at L.B. Nasar,

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 I Pgtu. Mallesh, S/o. Late,p. Sattaia,h,.Age. 42 years, Occ. Agricuttural, R/ o. Pedda Amberpet Town, Abdullapurmet MariOat, n.ri. oiitrict.

¶10

2 P. lvlahender, S/ o. Late p. Sattaiah, Age. 39 years, Occ. Agricultural,

¶11

3 P. Devender, S/ o. Late p. Sattaiah, Age. 36 years, Occ. Agricultural (All are R/ o. Pedda Amberpet Town, Abduilapurmei t'rjnOai n.h. oEtrictl,

¶12

.,.PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

Smt.SujathaRaji.Reddy, W/o, L. Raji Reddy. Age.58 years, Occ. household, K/0. Frar no. zU2 in premises 19. B-]3 a1d 24, DBR enclave, Mythri Nagar, Gaddi Annaram Town, Saroornagar Mandal, R.R. District

¶15

L. Vishwak^Reddy, S/0. L. Raji Reddy. Age. 32 years, Occ. private Service, R/o. Flat no. 202 in premises no. B-23 and 24, DBR enclave, Mythri Nagar, Gaddi Annaram Town, Saroornagar lr4andal, R.R. District

¶16

3, P. Balraj Yadav, S/ o. Shivalingam Yadam, Age. 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 1-1, Pedda Amberpet Town, Abdullapurmet lvlandal, R.R. District

¶17

(respondent No 3 not necessary pafty to this Petition)

¶18

.,,RESPONDENTS

¶19

IA NO: 1OF 2020

¶20

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 of all further proceedings including commencement of trial in the main suit in O.S.No.12B of 2018^pending before Hon'ble II Addl. Senior Civil Judge, R.R. District, at L.B.Nagar, pending disposal of Civil Revision Petition.

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. A SANJEEVA REDDY

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents: None

¶23

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶24

THE HO^N'BLES RI JUSTICE A.^RAJ ASHEKERRE^DDY CRP No.917 t 2020

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This civil revision^{petition is filed againstthe order dated30-01-} f 2O2O passed in^{IA No.1049 of2018 in OS No 128 of2018 by the Il Addl'} Senior Civil^{Judge,Ranga Reddlr District at L B'Nagar in dismissingthe} said application^{filed under Order Vll, Rule 11 CPCto reject the plaiutfor} non-disclosure of^{cause of action and as barred by limitation}

¶27

Heard the learned counsel^{for the petitioners-defendantswho} submits that the Court below^failed to^{noticethe fact that the suit} documents and properties referred in the^{plaint are betq'eenthe famil,v*} members of the plaintiffs and are not connected to the defendants. It^is also contended that the according to the plaint, the husband and^lather of the plaintiffs, respectively', has been missing from 21-12-2013 and on O4-Ol-2014 a complaint u,as lodged in that behalf r,"'ith the Police and; as per Section 107 and 108 of the Indian Evidencc Act, unless seven lcars expire from the date of missing, the presumption of ci.,,il death u'ill not arise and; seven years is not completed, the plaintiffs cannot maintain the suit as representatives of the said person

¶28

Perused the impugned order. It is settled proposition of law that in legal parlance that cause of action is a bundle of facts. In this case, the suit is filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the plea of non-disclosure of cause of action to maintain the suit is a mixed question

¶29

¶30

of lact and law which can be decided during the course ot. triat as rigt.rti.r. observed b.r. the Court bejou.. Under Order VII, Rule I 1(a) of the CpC, a plaint is liable to be rejected n'hen it does not disclose a cause of acriotl in itself, but from the given facts of the plaint, such a clear rndicative does not seem to appear to reject the plaint at the threshold.

¶31

ln the circumstances, I do not see any illegality or irregularitf in the impugned order warranting interference^{by this Courtin exerciseof} supervisory^jurisdiction under^{Article 227 of the ConstitutionThe civil}

¶32

revision petition fails^{and it is accordinglydismissed.Miscellaneous} applications, if^{an-vpending in this caseshall stand closed' No orderas}

¶33

to costs.

¶34

sd/^. N.CHANDRA^SEKHARRAO ASSISTANT^REGI AR //rRuE^{COPYI I}

¶35

SECTION^OFFICER

¶36

To,

¶37

1 .ThellAdditionalseniorCivilJudge'LB'Nagar-RRDistrict 2. d.'ac'l;itiii^{snlr:eevn REDDVAdvocate[oPucl} ) . Two CD^CoPies

][-"

HIGH COURT

DATED:05/^{10/ 2020}

ORDER

CRP.No.917 of 2020

1 HE ST4
rl
oa 04 NoV2020
I
*
I
!s ,l rp

¶45

DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTSX

¶46

.r$

¶47

¶48

P. Bala Mallesh v. Smt. Sujatha Raji Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Bala Mallesh v. Smt. Sujatha Raji Reddy

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

M/s. Omega Elevators Vs Union of India and 2 Others

G. Madhusudhan Yadav and Another Vs Jythuwada Mallaiah and 28 Others

Dr.Nagabhushana Rao Vs Putta Anjaneyulu goud

M/s. SandS Green Projects Private Limited Vs P.Srinivasa Rao

Sri. Palakurthy Srinivas Vs The State of Telangana and 3 others

Anumula Krishna Vs The State of Telangana