Allowed

Gundapuneni Yamunadevi, v. Mohd. Ghouse Khan and 3 others

Telangana HC9 Nov 2021WA/94/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this writ appeal against a Single Judge order that dismissed a petition without impleading a third-party appellant. The Court held that since a civil suit was pending and an injunction existed, the petitioner must have been impleaded to avoid prejudice. The matter was remanded to the trial judge to hear the appellant before passing orders.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition filed in the Single Judge was remanded to allow the appellant to be impleaded; appropriate orders to be passed after hearing the appellant.

Gundapuneni Yamunadevi, Vs Mohd… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

.-....-.

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

,r."1,,i1_T,=.llHi^?slrE,L?'o.ff

¶5

E=*

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HoN'BLE THE CHTEF JUSf.tgE SAISH CHANDRA SHARMA THE HoN,BLE a*, rrrrfl=o^RAJASHEKER REDDy

¶8

RIT APP N o 20

¶9

writ Appear under crause 15 0f the Letters patent fired against the order dated 18-12-2019 in writ petition No.2g084 0f 2019 0n the fire of the High court.

¶10

Between:

¶11

Gundapuneni yamur Edls:r,#{i13::If "'*f;^{il',li"'HTJ,.Rf i$1:?,:Rf ii:i?:} R ;; 6y' #, ii Fi i _, . ",^{is,l H,ilL.;, R;?, ?B |"il i,i. ff f I} "^{ffi U g:, Hffi?i#}

¶12

AND

¶13

.,.APPELLANT/THIRD PARTY

¶14

Mohd. Ghouse Khar

¶15

, ["};t-il'$ul;*flilfll;rs",'J,x-*ffi9;,1" f i" ".i,

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

¶17

Rep. by its commissioner, suryapet rown, suryapet

¶18

: il:;lTXt}jitj;nrcioarrtv, 4. The Station H6use Officer, p.S. Suryapet, Suryapet Town, Suryapet District.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶20

IANo :4O F 2020

¶21

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 direct the third respondent Municipar Authority to take appropriate action on the representation dt' 30-1 'r -201 g given by apperants against buirding permission and L R S obtained by the respondents No. 1 and 2, in consideration of the representation as per law.

¶22

Counset for the Appeltant: SRI pASAM SRINIVASA REDDY

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: SRI SANJEEV JILLELA

¶24

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI N. PRAVEEN KUMAR,

¶25

S.C. FOR MUNICIPALITIES

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent No.4: Gp FOR HOME

¶27

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶28

SHARMA

¶29

¶30

THE HON'BLE^{THECHIEFJUSTICESATISH} AND

¶31

IEE_ES'N'BI,E^{SRI JUSTICEA.}

¶32

WRIT APPEAL^{No.94 of 2O2O}

¶33

JUDGMENT: (Per the Hotl'ble tlTe Chiel.lusrice^{Sol6h ChandraShattna)}

¶34

The present writ^{appealis arisingout of order dated} 1A.I2.2}lg^{passed in W.P.No.28084of 20 19 by the learned} Single Judge^{at the admission stage itself'}

¶35

The contention of^{the appellant is that a writ petition} i.e., W,P.No.28084^{of 2019waspreferredby respondent Nos'1} and 2 herein with a^{prayer to restrain SuryapetMunicipality} from interfering with^{the cor:rstructionactivit5r and the writ} petition was allowed at^{motion hearingstage itself directing} therespondentsthereinnottointerferewiththeconstruction activity.

¶36

The appellant before this^{Court was not impleadedas} one of the respondents^{and the contention of the appellantis} that a civil suit is^{pending betrveen her and respondentNos l} and 2 and an injunction^{order has also been grantedon} 22.O1.2O1O and therefore, the^{present appellant \ /as} deliberately not impleaded^{as respondentin the writ petition'}

¶37

The factum of pendency of the^{civil suit betweenthe} appellant and respondent^Nos. I^{arid 2 has not been denied by} respondent Nos,1 and 2 before this Court^{and therefore, in all} fairness, respondent Nos.1 and 2 could have^impleadedthe

¶38

¶39

present appellant in the u:rit petition, w.hich ,r.as also in respect of the same property.

¶40

Resultantly, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is thereby set aside.^.lhe matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge with a request to hear the present appeliant also in the writ petition arld to pass appropriate orders in accordance with larv. The parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge on23.12.2021 . It is needless to mention that this Court has not observed anything on merits and al1 grounds shall be availabie to the parties before the learned Single Judge. Respondent Nos.l and 2lwrit petitioners are also directed to implead the present appellant as one of the respondents in the u,rit petition.

¶41

With the aforesaid, the .,,r1r appeai is aliou,,ed.

¶42

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, penrling in this u,rit

¶43

appeal shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

To,

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

SD/.M.S.ANTHI VARDHANI JOINT REGISTRAR secrror.rlHcpn

¶47

The Commissioner. Suryapet Municipality, Suryapet Town, Suryapet District, Telangana.

¶48

[/P

¶49

i,il!ii'i:$."lssf#3,:iii;.'aR:3,fx"iqi:y,lsibl",ruSuryapetDistrict 1. Qn"^{CC to Sri Sanjeev Jilet;.Ad6;;i"iijp"udi"} '"

¶50

!. 9n"^{CC to Sri N. praveenkrinai;S.C.} for irilln'ilipatities (opUC) 6. rwo ccs to Gp for Home, Highibouri i;i iii;'biJ6;ii;6d;" at Hyderabad. louTl T The section officer. posting section, High court for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad.

¶51

The section officer. Non-service Section, High court for the State of rerangana at Hyderabad.

¶52

Two CD Cooies.

10.One Spare bopy.

r!'

HIGH COURT

DATED:0911112021

JUDGMENT

WA.No.94 of 2020

168 SI4
,/J
i) 02 DEC ifipt
.:i
' '1"
*-
, '1.C
!.\qir.

¶60

ALLOWING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

¶61

L---4
il Db
<br>

Gundapuneni Yamunadevi, v. Mohd. Ghouse Khan and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gundapuneni Yamunadevi, v. Mohd. Ghouse Khan and 3 others

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. Durgabai Deshmukh Hospital and Research Centre Vs The Presiding Oficer

The Dy. Chief Traffic Manager, Vs P. Ramaswamy

State of Telangana and 3 others Vs G.Sathyawathi and 42 others

Kalyan Dileep Sunkara Vs Union of India deleted as per court order dated 14/07/2021

Sri.T.Kishan Singh Vs The State of Telangana and 5 others

Sri. T.Gyaneshwar Singh Vs The State of Telangana