Dismissed

Smt Bejagam Swathi, v. Kanukuntla Kommalu

Telangana HC7 Dec 2021CRP/434/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitioner challenged an order refusing to implead a vendor and approving his examination as a witness under Section 151 CPC of the original suit regarding property title. The Court dismissed the petition, finding no irregularity in the lower court's discretion.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; interim stay vacated; original suit to be reopened for limited purpose of examining vendor and exhibiting documents within six months.

Smt Bejagam Swathi, Vs Kanukuntla Kommalu — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 434 OF 2020

¶6

Petition under Article 227 ol ihe constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated. 21.11.2019 passed in l.A. No.1075 ol 2019 in o.S.No.37 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the ll Additional District Judge, Warangal.

¶7

Between:

¶8

p.Tl a9j9gflSryqth_1,W./g.Vljay Kumar, aged 39 years, Occupation: Househotd, Fl/o H.No.4-62l6/F-101, Sri Venk€ta Sai Residency, Road No.7, Near Saibaba Temple, Budhanagar, Feerzadiguda, Boduppal, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONERyDEFENDANT No.5

¶10

AND

¶11

Kanukuntla Kommalu, Slo.Late Krishtaiah, aged 78 years, Occupation: Retired Government employee, R/o H.No.2-6-937, K.L.N.Reddy Colony, Hanamkonda, WarangaL

¶12

Mamilla Suramma, W/o Komuraiah, Age 68 years, Occupation: Household, F/o H.No.23-1-1 3, Shayampet Village, Hanamkonda lr,4andal, Waranqal Districi.

¶13

Mamilla Raju, S/o Komuraiah, Age 48 years, Occupation BusineJs, R/o H.No.231-13, Shayamp-et Village, Hanamkonda Mandal, Warangal District.

¶14

l\ilamilla Srinu, S/o Konuraiah, Age 44 years, Occupation Business, R/o H.No.23-

¶15

^{1-13,Slyyampet Village, HanamkondaMandal,WarangalDistrict.}

¶16

Abboju Sudhakar, S/oa.Venkatnarayana, Age 41 years, Occupation Business,

¶17

_^{Rl/oPerikedu Village, Rayaparthy Mandal, Warang'al District.}

¶18

Porika.Manj! q/9_Lg1e Agaiah, Age 53 years, Occupation Government Employee, R/o_H.No.2-6-1 05, Housing Board Coldny, Hanamkonda, Warangal Distriit.

¶19

R. Suresh, S/oLate Agaiah, Age 51 yeari, Occupation Business,-Fi./o H.No.5-6TS,Lakshkar Bazar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

¶20

B. Peddireddy Venkataramana Reddy, S/o Surender Reddy, Age 42years,

¶21

^{Occupation Business, R/o H.No.11 -24-597,Pochammakunt;, Waiangal.}

¶22

Tekumatla Ramesh, S/o Narsaiah, Age 49 years, Occupation Employie, Rl/o Quarter No.1-432, 8 lncline Colony, Godavarikhani, Kaiimnagar Oistiict.

¶23

(Respondents 2 to 9 are not necessary parties to this Civil Revision petition)

¶24

...RESPONDENTS 2 to 9/defendants 1 to 4 and 6 to I

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶26

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 grant stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 21 .11.2019 passed in l.A. No.1075 ol 2019 in O.S.No.37 of 2009 by the Hon'ble tl Additionat District Judge, Warangal, pending disposal of the CRP, in the interest of justice.

¶27

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI H. VENUGOPAL

¶28

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI J. VENKATESWARA REDDY

¶29

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶30

I {

¶31

THE HON'BL E SRI JUSTICE A. VENI(ATESHWARA^REDDY CRP No.434 of 2020

¶32

ORDER:

¶33

'fhe revisio l petitioner/5'l' det'endant has Illccl this Civil lLevision Petition under Art cle 227 ol- thc Constitution ol lndia assailirte tne order dated 21.11.2019 r IA No. 1075 ol 2019 in OS No.l7 of'2009^passedby' the learncd ll Add ional District Judge. \ arangal

¶34

IA No.l075 of 2019 was tlled b1 the petitioneriplaintilf u/s.151 ol CPC to reopen the ;r-rit for further evidencc of plaintifl'and rnark thc simplc deed dated 17.05.1 )78 b.v.' sumrnoning the vendor ol'the plaintill br narne Nannaboina Ramu rL. This application r.vas allurvccl b1, the^('ourt below w'ith an observatio r that the plaintiff has initialll' tlled IA No.()46 of 2019 to implead the ven, or and it was dismissed holding that he is not necessar)' party and that the plaintilf can examinc the vendur as a witrress. but he cannot be impleade I as part1, to the suit. lhus. thc petitioner to cstablish the title ol his vendor ntends to examine hirn as a rr itness. Acc,.lrclireh. to provide a lair oppr'lunity that application rvas allorved sub-iect to pa)/ment ofcosts of Rs.500l to the respondent's counsel

¶35

The leaned c runsel for the revision petitioner,'5'h clelenda;rt remained absent. Heard the lt arned counsel for the flrst respondenti p laint it'f. l?erused the material availab r on record

¶36

The original ;uit No.37 of 209 rvas liled tbr the reliel o1'declaration of title and perpetu; linjunction in respect of the suit schedule p'operty i.e.. house plot adme suring 800 square yards lt) Surver' \o.!)59 ol' ilanamkonda Villa, r and Mandal. Warangal lJrban District. In the suit evidence on both si, r:s was closed. At that stage. the plaintill hts Uled this

¶37

¶38

application to reopen^{the suit to establishthe agreement of sale dated} 16.05.1990 and receipt dated^{17.05.1990 to showthat he has purchased the} said property for sale^{considerationol Rs.40,0001 lrom its owncr,} Nannaboina Ramulu.

¶39

The defendanl has denied the^{saidtransaction and accordingly, the} ptaintiff has filed the application to^{summonhis vendor-Nannaboina} Rarnulu and to nrark the^{sirnple sale deed along with receipt.Sincethe} Court belou' while disrnissing^{the application in IA No.946 of 2019 gave} liberty to the plaintitl'to^{examine his vendoras one olthe witnesses,instead} of irnpleading him^{as party to the proceedings,I do not find any irregularity} in the order irrpugned.

¶40

In the result, the Civil^{Revision Petition is disrrissedconfirmingthe} order impugned in IA^{No.l075 of 2019 in OS No.37of 2019.The interirn} stay granted on 25.02.2020^{shallstand vacated. The suit of the plaintiff} shall be reopened lbr^{thc lirnited purpose of examiningthe vendorand} exhibiting the simple^{sale deedand receipt.Bothpartiesshall cooperate} u'ith the trial Court fbr^{expeditious disposalof the suit. However,} considering thc I'act lhat^{the originalsuit relatesto the year2009' the Coun} below is directed to dispose^{of the suit,as expeditiouslyas possible,under} any circumstances^{not beyondsixmonths frorn thedate of receipt ofa copy} of this order. There shall^{be rro orderas to costs.}

¶41

Miscellaneous applications,^{il any pendingin this revision petition}

¶42

shall stand closed.

¶43

SD/-K.ONESIM ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \v,

¶44

¶45

SECTION OFFICER

¶46

To, 1. The ll Additional^{District Judge,Warangal'} .-2. One CC to^{Sri H. Venugopal, AdvocateIOPUUI} .^ 5. il; dC 6 5;i^{J. Venka"telwaraReddv,Advocate[OPUC]} 4. Two CD CoPies 5. One Spare^CoPY CDL gbr

HIGH COURT

DATED: 07112,21021

ORDER

CRP.No.434 o12020

<br>1rE S rAT5 o
,1
L:
:l
C.
10 l$12u2
r-)
:./

¶52

DISMISSING TIIE C.R.P

¶53

¶54

Smt Bejagam Swathi, v. Kanukuntla Kommalu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bejagam Swathi, v. Kanukuntla Kommalu

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

Rachuri Ramesh Babu Vs a.Praveen Kumar

Maheshwari Vs Sayani Venkatamma , Vankammo

Denchanala Uma Devi Vs Denchanala Hari Prasad

Kanne Anjaiah Vs Sama Amruthamma

Vallambhatla Poornachandra Rao Vs Smt.Thorpunuri Laxmi Narsamma,Laxmamma

Sanjiv K. Gupta Vs Sri Manepally Ramarao And Another