Dismissed

Ragichettukindi Narsimha , Garise Narsimhaha v. Mantri Narsing Rao , Ragichettikindi Narsing Rao

Telangana HC19 Feb 2021CRP/99/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two Civil Revision Petitions challenging the dismissal of applications to implead revenue authorities in a title suit. The Court held that the lower court correctly dismissed the impleadment applications as they lacked merit when no relief was claimed against the authorities.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petitions No. 96 and 99 of 2021 were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Ragichettukindi Narsimha , Garise Narsimhaha Vs Mantri… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF^FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER^REDDY

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 96^{AND 99 oF 2021}

¶6

CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION NO: 96 OF 2021

¶7

Petition under Article 227 oI the Constitution of^{lndia, aggrievedby the Order} decree dated. 1511212020^{passed in 1.A.No.616 of 2020 in O.S.No.614of 2011 on} the file of the Court of the Vlll^{Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy} District, at L. B. Nagar.

¶8

Betwee n:

¶9

1 Raqichettukindi Narsimha @ Garise^{Narsimha,S/o. Late Rangaiah,Aged about} 68^"years, Occ AgriculturelR/o.^{H.No.2-16, DhoolapallyVillage,Qutubhullapur} Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

2 Raoichettukindi @ Garise Bala Laxmi @^{Balamani,Wo. Late Sattaaiah,Aged} abdut 53 yeari occ. Agriculture, R/o.^{H.No.2-t6,DhoolapallyVillage,} Qutubhullapur Mandal,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶11

3 Raqichettukindi @ Garise Srinivas, S/o.^{Late Rangaiah,Aged about 58 years,} OcE. Agriculture,-Rlo. H.ruo.2-7l^1, Dhoolapally^{Village, Qutubhullapur Mandal,} Ranga Reddy District

¶12

...petitioners/petitioners/Praintiffs

¶13

AND

¶14

1 Mantri Narsing Rao @ Ragichettikindi^Narsing Rao, S/o. Lingaiah, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o. H.No.2-87,^D hulapally Village, Qutubhullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶15

Pyala Narsimulu, S/o. Bala Kistaiah,^{Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o,} H.No.4-36, Suraram Colony, Qutbullapur^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.}

¶16

Pvata Suiatha, Wo. Pyata Narsimulu,^{Aged about 52 years, Occ Hou-sewife,} Rio H.N6.4-36, Surarim Colony, Qutbullapur^{Mandal, Ranga Reddy District}

¶17

...Respondents/respondents/Defendants

¶18

The Mandal Revenue Officer,^{Dundigal-Gandimaisamma, Medchal-Malkajgiri} District,

¶19

The Revenue Divisional^{Officer, Medctial-MalkajgiriDistrict.} (Respondent No.4 and 5 are not necessary-^{parties to this} C.!.f)

¶20

...Respondents/Proposed Defendants^{4 and 5}

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI^{CH. JANARDHAN REDDY}

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.^{2 and 3: M/s D' SUDARSHAN REDDY}

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos. 1, 4 and 5: NONEAPPEARED}

¶24

CIVIL REV ISION PETITION^{NO: 99 OF 2021}

¶25

Petition under Article 227 ol ihe^{constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order} and decree dated.15.'12.2020^{passed in 1.A.No.954of 2019 in O.S.No.614 on the file}

¶26

of the Court of the Vlll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar.

¶27

Between:

¶28

1 Ragichettukindi Narsimha @ Garise Narsimhaha, S/o. Late Rangaiah, Aged about 68 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-16, Dhoolapally Village, Qutubhullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶29

Ragichettukindi @ Garise Bala Laxmi @ Balamani, W/o Late Sattaaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-16, Dhoolapally Village, Qutubhullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶30

Ragichettukindi @ Garise Srinivas, S/o. Late Rangaiah, Aged about 58 years, Occ Agriculture, R/o. H.No.2-7l1, Dhoolapally Village, Qutubhullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶31

... Petitioners/Petitioners/Plai ntiffs

¶32

AND

¶33

Mantri Narsing Rao @ Ragichettikindi Narsing Rao, S/o. Lingaiah, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Private Service, R/o. H.No.2-87, Dhulapally Village, Qutubhullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District,

¶34

Pyala Narsimulu, S/o. Bala Kistaiah, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.4-36, Suraram Colony, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶35

Pyata Sujatha, Wo. Pyata Narsimulu, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. H.No.4-36, Suraram Colony, Qutbullapur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶36

Smt. Ragichettikindi Thirupathamma, C/o. Late Chinna Lingaiah, Aged about 80 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No.SR.123, Sitaramnagar, Safilgud5, Secunderabad-

¶37

R. Santhosh Kumar, S/o. R. Narsimha, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.SR.123, Sitaramnagar, Safilguda, Secunderabad.

¶38

...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants

¶39

The Mandal Revenue Officer, Dundigal-Gandimaisamma, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.

¶40

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Medchal-Malkajgiri District. (Respondent No. 6 and 7 are not necessary parties to this C.R.P)

¶41

...Respondents/Proposed Defendants 6 and 7

¶42

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶43

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.6'14 of 2011 on the file of Vlll Additional, District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶44

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI CH. JANARDHAN REDDY

¶45

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3: M/s D. SUDARSHAN REDDY

¶46

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 4 to 7: NONE APPEARED

¶47

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶48

HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE^{A.RAJASHEKERREDDY} CIVIL REVISI ON PETITIO^{N Nos.96&99 0F 2021}

¶49

coMMON ORDER:

¶50

Since the issue^{involvedin both these Civil Revision} Petitions and^{the parties are one. and the sarne' they are} being heard together^{and disposed of by way of this Common} Order.

¶51

CivilRevisionPetitionNo.g6of2o2|isliledagainst order dated^{15.12.2O2O in I'A'No'616 of 2O2O in OS No'614 of} 2011, whcrein^{and whereby the applicationfiled under} Sectionl5lofCPCtoreopenthesuitforthepurposeof impleading the^{MRO the then Quthbullapur Mandal and} presently Dundigal^{GandimaisamaMandal and the then} Revenue Divisional^{Officer, R'R'District and presently} Medchal Malkajgiri^{District in the main suit as defendant} nos.4 and^{5 was dismissed'}

¶52

Civil Revision^{PetitionNo'99 of 2O2l is Iiled against} order dated^{15.12.2020 in I'A'No'9S4of 2Ol9 in OS No'614 of} 2011, wherein^{and whereby the appiication filed under Order} I Rule 10 read^{with Section 151 of CPC for impleadingthe} MRO the then Quthbullapur^{Mandal and presently Dundigal} Gandimaisama^{Mandal and the then Revenue Divisional} officer, R.R.Distri.ct^{and preseptlyMedchalMalkajgiriDistrict} in the main^{suit as defenda.nt rros'4 and 5 was dismissed'}

¶53

ileard both^sidcs.

¶54

SriCh.JanardhanReddy,learnedcounselforthe petitioners,^{who submitthat in order to prove his case' the} Mandal^{RevenueOffrcerand the RevenueDivisional Officer} are very^{much necessarysince their evidence is necessary'} but the^{Court below, without consideringthe said aspect'} dismissed^{both the applications' which is erroneous' He also} submits^{that no prejudicewill be caused to the respondents'} ifMRoandRDoareimpleadedandinfact,truefactswill come out^{and will help in adjudication of the suit'}

¶55

Sri Duddugunta^{Sudarshan Reddy' learned counselfor} the respondents^{submitthat the petitioners have to prove} their case^{and that too in a suit for declaration of title' when} no relief is^{claimed against MRO and RDO' they cannot be} impleaded.^{He submitsthat just for proving the case of the} petitioners the^{MROand RDO cannot be impleaded'}

¶56

Admittedly,^{the suit is for declarationof title' It is very} strange^{how such applicationscan be filed in the suit for} impleading^{the MRO and RDO' If the petitionerswant to} prove their^{case, they ought to have filed an application to} take out^{summons to the said authorities' Instead of doing} so, the applications^{have been filed before the Court below for} impleading^{them, that too at the stage of arguments'More} so, the suit^{is of the year 2011' Even though the said} applications^{are dismissed, it is also very strange that the} present Civil Revision^{Petitions are {iled before this Court'}

¶57

The Court below considered^{the issue in properperspective} and passed a reasoned order.

¶58

In view of above facts and circumstances,^absolutely there are no merits in these^{revision petitions warranting} interference by this Court under^{Article 227 ofthe} Constitution of India.

¶59

these Civil Revision^Petitionsare Accordingly, dismissed. There shall^{be no order as to costs. As a sequel} thereto, miscelianeous^{applications, ifany, pending shall} stand dismissed.

¶60

SD/- M,^MANJULA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR N,_,//TRUE COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶61

To, 1 The Vlll Additional^{District and SessionsJudge' RangaReddy District at L'B'} Naoar. 2 l]iEta to^{Sri cH. Janardhan Reddv' Advocate[oPUC]} J ;nI;; i"^{sii rtrlt o suoarsnan Reddv' Advocate[oPUc]} 4. Two^{CD CoPies} MMK

4{{Y

HIGH COURT

ARRJ

DATED: 1 9/0212021

COMMON ORDER

CRP.No.96 AND 99 of 2021

¶68

I
1 HE sT4 <br>(
oo 02 }1AB 202t
i t

¶69

DISMISSING THE BOTH CIVIL REVISION^PETITIONS

Ragichettukindi Narsimha , Garise Narsimhaha v. Mantri Narsing Rao , Ragichettikindi Narsing Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ragichettukindi Narsimha , Garise Narsimhaha v. Mantri Narsing Rao , Ragichettikindi Narsing Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt G. Vasantha Vs Smt G. Latha

Naren Mohanraj Madurai Vs Suchita Rao Ketineni

Jambula Anjan Reddy Vs Jambula Vasavi

Ragichettukindi Narsimha , Garise Narsimha Vs Mantri Narsing Rao , Ragichettikindi Narsing Rao

Smt. Annila Raja Kumari and 2 others Vs Sri Hanuman Devalayam and 3 others

Smt. Ashalatha Pathak Vs Sri Vitaleswara Swamy Temple