Remanded

Amer Ali Baig v. Smt.Usha Devi Sarda

Telangana HC1 Apr 2021CMA/805/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court adjudicated a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal regarding a lingering interim order. Noting that the procedural impediment (a separate Order I Rule 10 application) had been resolved, the Court directed the trial court to decide the interim application within two months, pending which, parties must maintain the physical status quo of the property. The associated MRPRs were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to decide the pending interim application before April 30, 2021; parties restrained from changing the physical features of the property pending such decision; other MRPRs dism

Amer Ali Baig Vs Smt.Usha Devi Sarda — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S,RAMACHANDRA RAO AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR

¶6

CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 805 OF 2019

¶7

Appeal Under Order 43 Rule (1) of C.P.C. against the Order dated 02-04-2019 in LA. No. 15 ol 2019 in O.S. No. 2 o'l 2019 on the file of the Court of the Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Amer Ali Baig, S/o. [r,4urtuza Baig, Aged about 49 years, Occ: Service, Rl/o. C/o. Naozar Chenoy, Venugopal Chenoy, Chartered Accountants, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶10

Syed Turab [/ehdi, S/o. Latif Mehdi, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Service, Fl/o. C/o. Naozar Chenoy, Venugopal Chenoy, Chartered Accountants, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶11

Appellants are rep. by their DGPA Holder N//s. Aarthi Constructions, rep. by its Managing Partner G.Bhuvaneshwar, S/o. late G.Chandram, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.6-76, Dollar Hills, Puppalaguda, Hyderabad.

¶12

...APPELLANTS/ Respondent Nos. 6 & 7/ Defendant Nos. 6 & 7

¶13

AND1. Smt.Usha Devi Sarda, Wo. Arun Kumar Sarda, Aged about 57 years, Occ: Household, Rl/o.H.No.3-3-85, Chappal Bazar:, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

¶14

Arun Kumar Sarda, S/o. Srinivas Ji Sarda, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Chartered Accountant, R/o.H.No.3-3- 85, Chappal Bazar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

¶15

.. Respondents/ Petitioners / Plaintiffs

¶16

1. Turab Ahmed Khan, S/o. Late Eraj Ahmed Khan, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Landlord, Rl/o. FIat No.206, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶17

Mrs.Shakela Banu, W/o.Turab Ahmed Khan, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Household, Fl/o. Flat No.206, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶18

Aziz Ahmed, S/o. Late Eraj Ahmed Khan, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o. H.No.1-10-278, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶19

[\lrs.Razia Ahmed Kha,^\Nlo. Aziz Ahmed, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Household, Rl/o. H.No.1-10-278, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶20

Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are rep, by their Regd. GPA Holder Thakur Verender Singh, S/o. T.Brindan Singh, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o.D.No.13-3-286, Doolpet, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶21

Thakur Verender Singh, S/o. T.Brindan Singh, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, R/o.D.No.13-3-286, Doolpet, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶22

B. Sara l\tlehdi, D/o. Latif Mehdi, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Household, Rl/o. C/o. Naozar Chenoy, Venugopal Chenoy, Chartered Accountants, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/ Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 & 8/ Defendant No. l to5&8

¶24

lA NOr 3 oF 2019

¶25

Petition under section 151^{cPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High court maybe pleased to} suspend the operation of^{Order dated 02.04.2019 passed in I A.No.15 of 2019} in O.S.No.2 of 2019 on the^{file of the Court of Xll Additional Chief Judge, City} Civil Court at Secunderabad^.

¶26

lA NO: 2 OF 2019

¶27

Petition under Sections 32^{and 33 CRP read with Section 151 of CPC} praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the} petition, the High Court may be^pleased to^permit the^{petitioner to represent} the appeal and to^{prosecute the case,in the interestof justice,pending} disposal of the above first appeal.

¶28

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶29

Between:

¶30

Smt.Usha Devi Sarda, W/o.^{Arun Kumar Sarda Aged about59 years,} Occ: Household, Rl/o.H.No.3-3-85, Chappal^{Bazar, Kachiguda,} Hyderabad.

¶31

Arun Kumar Sarda, S/o. Srinivas^{Ji Sarda, Aged about 60 years,} Occ: Chartered Accountant, Fi/o.H.No.3-3-^{85, Chappal Bazar, Kachiguda,} Hyderabad.

¶32

.. Appellants / Respondents No.¹ &²

¶33

And

¶34

Amer Ali Baig, S/o. Murtuza Baig, Occ: Service, R/o. C/o. Naozar Chenoy, Venugopal Chenoy, Chartered Accountants, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶35

Syed Turab Mehdi, S/o. Latif lVehdi, Occ: Service, Fl/o. C/o. Naozar Chenoy, Venugopal Chenoy, Chartered Accountants, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶36

Appellants are rep. by their DGPA Holder M/s. Aarthi Constructions, rep. by its Managing Partner G.Bhuvaneshwar, S/o. late G.Chandram, Occ: Business, Fl/o. H.No.6-76, Dollar Hills, Puppalaguda, Hyderabad.

¶37

Turab Ahmed Khan, S/o. Late Eraj Ahmed Khan, Aged about 43^years, Occ: Landlord, Fl/o. Flat No.206, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶38

Mrs.Shakela Banu, W/o.Turab Ahmed Khan, Aged about 46^years, Occ: Household, Rl/o. Flat No.206, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶39

Aziz Ahmed, S/o. Late Eraj Ahmed Khan, Aged about 46^years, Occ Business, Rl/o. H.No.1-10-278, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶40

Mrs.Razia Ahmed Kha, Wlo. Aziz Ahmed, Aged about 46 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1-10-278, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶41

Respondent Nos.3 to 6 are rep, by their Regd. GPA Holder Thakur Verender Singh, S/o. T.Brindan Singh, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Business, Rl/o.D.No.13-3-286, Doolpet, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶42

Thakur Verender Singh, S/o. T.Brindan Singh, Aged about 58 years, Occ Business, Fl/o.D.No.13-3-286, Doolpet, Asif Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶43

Sara ti/ehdi, D/o. Latif lVehdi, Aged about 60^{years, Occ:Household,} F:/o. C/o. Naozar Chenoy, Venugopal Chenoy, Chartered^Accountants, Tilak Road, Hyderabad.

¶44

.,.PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶45

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances stated} in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{HighCourt may} be^pleased to vacate the interim order dated 2810812019 in^l.A,No.3 of^{2019 in} C.M.A.No.B05 of 2019,^pending disposal of^{the above CMA.}

¶46

Counsel for the Appellants: SRI^D. JAGADESHWAR^RAO

¶47

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SRI C. DAMODAR REDDY}

¶48

The Court delivered2 the following:^Judgment

¶49

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICEM.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO}

¶50

AND

¶51

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICET.VINODKUMAR} C L U AP AL No. 50 2019

¶52

.IUD GMENT:^{(PerSri JusticeM s.RantachandraRao)}

¶53

Heard Sri^{D. Jagadeshwar Rao, the leamed counsel for the} petitioners and^{Sri C. DamodarReddy' leamed counsel for the} respondents.

¶54

In this appeal,^{orderdated02'04'2019in I'A No'15 of 2019 in} O.S. No.2^{of 2019 passed by the XII Additional Chief Judge' City Civil} Court at^{Secunderabadis challenged'}

¶55

Admittedly,^{initially, the Court below had granted an ex parte} interim injunction^{on 04'01.2019and later, after filing of counterby the} appellant,^{modified it to a "statusquo"order on 02'04'2019 '}

¶56

The Court below^{in the saidorder had observedthat an application} under Section^{Order-I Rule 10 CPC is pending and it is not appropriate} to dispose of^{I.A. No.15 of 2019 withoutdisposingof the application} under Order-I,^{Rule 10 CPC.}

¶57

It is now^{broughtto our notice that the application under Order-I} Rule 10 CPC^{has been clisposed of' Therefore'there is no impediment to} decide l.A.^{No.15 of 2019 on merits after hearingall the partiessince the} matter has been^{pending for almosttwo years'}

¶58

Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of directing the court of the XII Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Secunderabad to decide IA. No.15 of 2019 in O.S No.2 of 2019 pending on its file before 30.04.2021 aft.er hearing both sides. Till disposal of the said I.A., the parties to the suit shall not change the physical features of the property as they exist as on today.

¶59

Pending miscellaneous petitior.rs, if any, shall also stand

¶60

dismissed. No costs.

¶61

sD/-K'SRINIVASA^RAg JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY// \/'

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

i,S:te1lt.flfliii1*]HiFj{itr:iJ[fl^{f :f'ln."*ouo}

¶67

Two CD^CoPies obr ;/'

HIGH COURT

DATED:01^10412021

io)
0$ APB2021
*

JUDGMENT

GMA.No.805^{of 2019}

DISPOSING^{OF THE CMA}

¶74

WITHOUT^COSTS

¶75

¶76

Amer Ali Baig v. Smt.Usha Devi Sarda

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amer Ali Baig v. Smt.Usha Devi Sarda

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

Dr. Ch. Parimala Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Sri.Harijan , Eedammabavi Boppi Beeda Kumar and 3 Others Vs Sri.Harijan , Eedammabavi , Boppi Narsaiah and 10 Others

M/s. Golden Mesh Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

K.Balakoteswara Rao Vs Mrs. Manne Anuradha

G.Srihari Vs C.Sunil Kumar and Another

Panja Bhavya sri Vs The State of Telangana