The High Court quashed an order rejecting a suit for possession, holding that a new cause of action arose from dispossession, making the present suit distinct from a prior suit for declaration.
Impugned order set aside; court below directed to number the suit and decide on merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
\
IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAYOF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND ANDTWENTYONE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.VIJAYSENREDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETIT loN NO: 1606 OF 2019
Petition under Arlicle 227 of constitutionof lndia, aggrieved by the orderdated 26l}4t211g in oS sRNo.99',l2/2019 on the file of the court of the chief Judge, city civil
Court, Hyderabad.
BETWEEN:
Both R/o 6-3-LOg2/93, A-Block,2nd Floor, Shanti Shikara Complex, Raj BhavanRoad,' Hyderabad.
Revision Petition ers/Pla in tiffs
AND
1 Sri ChamarthiMallikarjuna Rarna krishna S/o. Late Ch. Suryanarayana, Aged 5Byears, Occ: Business, R/o,508,sth Floor, Sneha Towers, Near RelianceBunk, Tanuku, West Godavari District, AP. 2 Sri Chamarthi Aditya Sravan S/o. Sri Chamarthi Mallikarjuna Ramakrishna, Aged 2B years, Occ:Business. R/o.508, 5th Floor, Sneha Towr3rs, Near RelianceBunk,Tanuku, West Godavari District, AP. 3 Kum. Chamar"thi Lakshmi Padnra Harini D/0. Sri ChamarthlMallikarjuna Ramakrishna, Aged about 21 years, Occ: R/o.508', Str' Floor, Sneha Towr:rs, Near Reliance Bunk,Tanuku, West Godavari, District,r AP 4 IY/s. SR Projects at 101, Hirises KVR Paradise, Bahchupally, R.R. Distrlct, rep. by its Managing Partner, Sri Arimili Ramakrishna, S/o, Sri ChakradaraRao, Aged about 4Byears, Occ: Business, R/o. Velpur, Tartuku Mandal, West Godavari District, AP. /./
I !
_il
... Resp,:ndents/DeFendants
For the Petitioners : SRI DAMODAR MUNDRA, Advocate
For the Respondents : SRI A.p. REDDY, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI B.VEERANJANEyULU, A(lvocate The Court made the following: ORDER
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY
Civil Revision Petition No,15O6 of 2O19
ORDER:
This revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 26.04.2019 passed in O.S.S.R, No.9912 of 2019 by the Chief Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
Un-numbered O.S.S.R. No.9912 of 2019 was filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs seeking direction against the respondents/defenda nts to handover the possession of the suit schedule house property bearing Municipal No.8-2-293l82 /A/146 and 1464 in old Survey No.403/1, new survey No.120 and 102/1 admeasuring 1232 square yards situated at Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad to the plaintiffs and costs of the suit.
The Office took the objections that "How the suit is valued under Section28 of APCF and S.V. Act and 2) Plaintiffs to explainhow the suit is maintainable when CCCA No.33 of 2018 ispending before the HonbleHigh Court of Telangana Between the same parties". The counsel for theplaintiffsresubmittedthe suit bundleby clarifying the objections taken by the Office.
Under the impugned order, the Court belowrejectedthe un-numbered suit on the ground that the relief sought forin O.S.No.731of 2010 on the file of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad, and the relief sought for in the present un-numbered.sUit is one and the same except the relief of cancellationof AGPA.
The learned counsel, Sri DamodarMundra, appearing for the revision petitioners/pla intiffs drawn the attention of this Court to thejudgmentdated 12.09.2017 passed in O.S. No.731 of 2010 by theX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, where under therelief soughtwas to declarethe plaintiffs as owners andpossessors of the suit scheduleproperty.There is no relief sought for recovery of possession; whereas, instant suithas been flled seekingfor recovery of possession by removing the defendantsfromthe possessionof the suit Schedule property. He also submitted that the instant suit is filed undersection 6 of the
Specific Relief Act.The respondent/defendant No.1 and his fanrily members are the vendors. Respondents1 to 3 herein have executed agreem(rntof sale cum GPA dated 23.O4.2010in favour of the 4th respondent. The 5rh r,:spondent, who was tenant of thepetitioners, colluded with the respondents1 to 4 and handed over the possession of the suit schedulepropertyto respondents1 to 4'
The learned counsel,IV1r.A. P. Reddy,appearing fcr the respondents, submitted that theinstantsuit is not maintainable as the petitioners have alreadY filed suit in O.S. No.731of 2010 for declaration and they were unsuccessful in the said suit. Present suitcould not have beeninstituted agairst the same pa rtie s . Hence, he sought to dismissthe present revision petition..
Heard the learned counselfor the revisionpetition,lrs and the learned counsel for the respondentsand perusedthe material on r6cord'
in theplaint, thisCou -t is of the view that Havingperused the averments instant suit is filed based on the new cause of action andfilt:d under Section6 of the Specific Relief Act. It isspecificallystated that :he petitionerswere dispossessed from 22.10.2018. in theplaintaverments:here is reference of judgment in o.s. No.731 of 2010 passed by the x Additionalchief Judge, city Civil Court at Hyderabad and it is thecontentionof thepetitior e rs/plaintiffs that the res po nde nts/defe nda nts 1 to 4high-handedly taken .posr;essionfrom the5th defendant, tenant, by colludingwith him in spite of sfatus qL)o order passed by the court in CCA. No.33 of 2018(filed challenging dismissal der:ree in o.S. No.731of 2010 ).
As the sult is based on separate cause of action, o)jections of the Court below in the impugned order are over-ruled. Hence, the mpugned order dated 26.04.2OI9passed in OSSR. No.9912 of 2019 is set aside and the Court belowis directed to number the suit.
With the above, this Civil RevisionPetition is allowed.Miscellaneous applicatlons, if any pending, shall standclosed. There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/. SD/. N.(]HANORA SEKHARRAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR CtD ,TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER
\
To, 1. The Chief Judge,City CivilCourt ,Hyderabad 2. One CC TO Sri.Damodar Mundra,Advocate (OPUC)
f au')
HIGH COURT
DATED:05/08/2021
,{ HE siA rA
I
/. Y
oJ 31 AUC20?| o
.L
1a., * *
c,r$I',,:,TC
ORDER
CRP.No.1606 of 2019
ALLOWING THE CRP.
I
.<br>?.4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a suit filed for recovery of possession based on a new cause of action is maintainable in light of a previous suit for declaration.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
T. Raunak Bhandari
Sri Virender Chand Bhandari
Sri Chamarthi Mallikarjuna Ramakrishna
Sri Chamarthi Aditya Sravan
Kum. Chamarthi Lakshmi Padma Harini
Yrs. SR Projects
B. Vijay Sen Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
