Disposed

K. Praveen Kumar v. T. Kalyan and 3 others

Telangana HC8 Sept 2022CMA/28/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana disposed of a review petition by remitting the matter to the trial court. The court directed the trial court to dispose of a specific interlocutory application regarding maintenance of status quo expeditiously, pending such disposal.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed with a direction to the trial court to dispose of I.A. No. 1731 of 2016 expeditiously; parties to maintain status quo till such disposal.

K. Praveen Kumar Vs T. Kalyan and 3 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[³²⁵⁸ ]

¶2

I I I I I I I I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF I.,4ARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THRET

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVARAO NAIDU

¶7

l.A No.2 OF 2022

¶8

¶9

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUSf PPEAL NO:28 OF 2021

¶10

Between:

¶11

1 K. Praveen Kumar, S/o K. Krishnaiah, Aged about 45 years, Occ.Soft Ware Engineer, Rep. by his GPA holdei K. Krishnaiah, R/o Fiat No. 406, Door No 24-1025, Siri Sai Heights, Nimboli Adda, Hyderabad

¶12

a Kolisetty Krishnaiah, S/o K. Ramaiah, Aged about 70 years, Occ.Business, R/o Flat No. 406, Door No. 2-4-1025. Siri Sai Herghts, Nimboli Adda, Hyderabad. ...REVIEW PETIT|ONERS/APpELLANTS/PAL|NTtFFS

¶13

AND

¶14

T.Xalyan, S/o T. Ramesh, Aged about 33 years, R/o H No. 32, Road No. .1, L.B Nagar, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District

¶15

Abulia_h @ Mohd. Abrlllah Khadri, S/o lnauthullah, aged about 40 years. Occ Mechanic, Rr/o. Plot No. 9, Sy. No. 9/1, Saroornagar Village, R.R. District.

¶16

Nurzahana Begum Noorjahan, Ali Mohd. Abdullah Khadri, aged about 35 years Occ.House Wife, R/o. Plot No. 9. S,/. No. 9/1, Saroornagar Village, R.R District.

¶17

Kubra Bee, Wo. Mohd. Mahboob Ali Aged about 80 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. Plot No. 9, Sy. No. 9/1, SaroornagirVillage, R.R. Drstiict

¶18

...RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Section 114 Rlw Order 47 rule 1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Review the judgment passed in C.M.A,No.2B of 2021 dt.08-09-2022.

¶20

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. BANKATLAL MANDHANI

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI. A. USHI REDDY

¶22

The Court made the following:

¶23

THE HON'I LE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RA() NAIDU

¶24

INTERL )CUTORY APPLICATION No.2 OF 2t)2il tN CML MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.28 OF 2rO2 I

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

'l'his r-\ c\ l)rl-rtior) has been filer-l bv the petili()rr''-s/ir1 p'iiants l:r'rclc,r Section 114 C P.C r,,u, lrder Rttlr' I^(, I⁽ irrtlr:i T)r'ii\ t'r' trr revieir tlrC .lrr-ltirnCnt in (ll.i.rr \o l8 rr i).2 I <lir[t:c,] l)8.09.20'22. 'lhc pitrtic,ners arc 1>larrlii'ls^{ir') S.l.ir, ,-t,l rrl.:-()l.l otr rhc fil,: ,rfSl;r.cia1} Sissiorrs ,.Juilr , lirr^'l rrrl i,i^(lir:ics under SC^/ST 1l)r.)A^.\c.r. (-r.rtn-/ll l rl rriion:il ljrstricr ,Judge, at L,.B.l'lagar (lr c r-t'ir a l'l c-r ll l;c^.r Ii,r'rcd u:, rr-tal Courrt) and zrppeilants rrr C.NLA No.-r t i,-[^r02 i. I3crrig ;rggrier.cd bv the r;rdt,rs o[ tirc t.riarl^(lor-u' rl l.A.No. 196 ol 2O 19 lr.hereunde^- -tre trial (lottl't lti(':,.1 ('( I irl' intgriltr injunctiol grzrnte(l .n their ia,,'olri- u-r I..A . ) I i:-l 1 ,ri 29 l(). th,, pctitioncrs hai,,r l1e,l the saicl f'.Nl {. \r -tri (,i .102 l . TIri. s;aicl Cir,il Miscc lan<rorrs Apiprs6i rvrrs ril: rr-.sr'<l bt^,.his Court on 08.O9.2):a'.1..

¶27

{

¶28

( I

¶29

I A,No,2 oI 2O22 in CMA No.2a oJ 2O21

¶30

Fccling aflgrieved \'ith the said dtsrnissal. thc petitioncrs/appcllants have filed the present rer-ieir pctitror-r on the follor.r,ir-rg grounds:

¶31

Tl-re Order under review is totally contrary ro Order 39 Rule 4 CPC and contrary to settled larv laid dor'r,n br the Apex Court in a^judgment reported in AIR 2OO5 SC 104 The said judgme nt though cited by the petitioners^{\ ras} not considered u hile disposing CMA No.28^of 202 1.^{'l'his Court} failed to consider the first proviso of Orcler 39^{Rule 4 CPC} and failed to appreciate that the failure of the^petitioners about mentioning C.M.A.No.717 of 2014^orfiling I.A.No.13O1 of 20 13 is not a ground for^discharging, varying or setting aside order^passed under^{Order 39 Rule} 1 and 2 CPC

¶32

The petitioners have claimed that as^per the^above stated orders of the Apex Court,^{unless and until the case} of irreparable loss or damage made out^{by party to the suit,} the Court should not permit the nature o[ the^property being chalged which includes alienation of damage^of property, since it will cause loss or damage to the property to party who may ultimately succeed.

¶33

¶34

Lt1.No.2 of2O22 it Cl']l No.,l8 ol 2O21

¶35

+. -l- rc p't Ir()nc]'s l-irrtircl sL,rle(l thilt t]rr' -r r,rrI l-relorl frulecl t^, ,rl)l,rr'clallc thill th(' rt'sPonclt'ntr'c efcrrcl,: rL No.J rn hrs corrnIr'r- ail-idar,ir rrI rn ]tis \ riItcn statr]rne I Lt ,lid not claill an\ tr It. r'ight ol rnicicst or possL.ss,ion (, r iite suit sclredu,e l)ri rport) .rnd us pcr hrs del'cnse th<'s-i;: property is diffi r-c'rt lrorn the l)rol)(,rL\ u ltich Ite satc to have plrrcllase(l .^' trCrefor-e. rt rs tlrr, (lLlt\ ol-the Cr,r-rrt o ;ec thc stirlLls^(rLlo 1r 'i rq nr:.rmliIne(i i)\ ( t tlt(, suit I)rcpert r

¶36

T[-ie ]r.r1 iti,tncrs l'rrrtlrcr- subnritlcc t]riLi tl-re 1.r resporrden - r irl no[ ciaint t]tzrt as on thc <late ol- filing the petition viclt LA.No. 1731 o1' 2O 16, he has rr ade any constlucti(,r) lhorel), the rllrestion of petitionr r,l ntaking false or misl'ading statcmcnt does not arisr:. I herefore, thc pctitiorrc s sought Ibr rcvreri of the juCgrnent ir CMA No.28 ot 2C2

¶37

The rcs ronclenls opposed the pctition.

¶38

Hearci b )th parties

¶39

No\' t re point iirr considcr at ion is

¶40

lVhell'et li^)t,-e ls QnLl error Qppa.rent or,. tlrc' -(a.:e c.f the rr-:cort i tt r.^,1;i1111, tl't^()rlL'r'.)

¶41

¶42

¶43

LA.No.2 of 2022 in CMA No.28^{of 2o2l}

¶44

9. POINT:

¶45

This revrcrv pctitioll^{has becn iiled tt ith a praver to} review the^{judgment in CMA No.28of 2O2 Iq'hereinthe} request of thc^{petitionersto set aside the order of trial} Court in I.A.No.^{196 of 20 19 and to restore the status quo} granted earlier^was dismissed.^{For effectivedisposal of the} present ret,ien', it^{is just and necessaryto mentioncertain} events ri'hich^{leacl thepetitionersherein infiling} C.M.A.No.2B of^2021-

¶46

The petitioners^{have filed the main suitvide} O.S.No.765 of^{2O 13 for declaration of title and recoveryo[} possession of suit^{schedule property i e', Plot No'9 to an} extent of 200^{sq.yards inSy'No'9/ I ofSaroornagar} Mandal. The suit^{filed was against (3) personsin the first} instance and^{later one P.Kalyan has been impleadedas} defendant No.4.^{The petitionershave filed I'A'No 13o 1 of} 2013 for temporary^{injunction to restrain the respondbnts} i.e., respondent Nos.1^{to 3/defendant Nos' 1 to 3from} changing the nature^{of the propert5r' After impleading4tr'} defenclant in the suit,^{the petitionersfited I'A'No' 1731 of} 20 16 under Order 39^{Rule 1and' 2and sought for}

¶47

( t

¶48

I A Io.) of )O.'2 ie ('i;1i .'o 23 of :O21

¶49

tcnrl)or-.tl \ ltJLtltctro| 1o rctstl'.tin tltc^{,1 ,} rlt:l-r clant ll-orn jntt'r'lcr irrg '.r itlt rheit- posscsst()lt illtcl l-t L)trr ( )t,rn;1inq the nillLtrc of 11 e p|ol)e rtl

¶50

ll. The'rr sporrrienr., clct'enriirnt No. i l'iits f ite c I rs coLtrrLer :ifficlar':r.'l'l e tr[rl C()ur'1 dll-r'cled tlt(. ])il1'tl l:j 1( nra;.intain stlttrls qu( ancl saicl lrrtcr-locurton \ltpliri rion \.as adj or-rnrccl I -orn t ime lo tim('. btrt rrol clr.cirkrrl )ll mcrlts. l'i-re rc aitc r'. h:^{'esponclt'nts} lllt:d I.,.\o.l(rtir ol -l()1!) uirr.ier Ordcr 39 Rr te^.1 CPC u iLl-r an alLegatior-r thrrr thr, pet.tionr-.rs havc olttarrr rc .slrzlus r1uo bl plaving frar.rd on .l're Cor-rrt. The trietl^(lor rri allowe cl Lhe sar<l petition or O7.1-l 2020 ar-rd vaca l ed rl- c :r.rrlicr stalLls qtrO ordcr'. Tlte 1tt'titi^.net-s haVe chailengec t re said order in CMA No.28 ol 202) r,'hich rl,as dismrssed 1;r t his Court un 08.U9.2022.

¶51

The 1t^,tttioners liled the pre sent r€.1( \ F,ctition mainly on t te ground that the order is contr-it -y to the provisions o1 ()rder 39 Rule 4 CPC and tl- e Co_l t cLid not consider tl-Lr' :i -arion lllcd br tlrc petitionr.rs r(pc11 :rci il AIR 2022 SC 10, . The revrev.' is Llnder Sectlo r t r.l CpC and also unoer O cler.l7 Rulc I CtrC

¶52

¶53

¶54

I.A.No.2 oJ^{2o22in CMA No 28 oJ 2O2l}

¶55

Ord,er 47^{Rulc 1 of CPC rcadsas follon's}

¶56

"An], pcrson t otrsiclr:rittg^himsclI aggricved(a) by a dccrce^{or orclcr frornu hichan appealis allou'ed'} but from^{r.r'hich no appealhas been preferred' (b) bl'a} decree or ordcr^{from u'hich no appeal isallowed'or} (c) by a dct:isiotr^{otl a refercttcc from a Court of Sm:rll} Causes, and^{u'hrl. lrom the discoveryofnew atld} important^{matter or evidencewhich' after the exerciseof} due diligencc^{\'as nol s'ithirl his knorvledgeor could not} be produccd^{b1' I'rin'r at thc time n'hcn the decreeu'as} passed or order^{meldc,or on account of somemistake or} error apparent^{on thc face oI the recordof for any other} sufficient^{reason! tlcsires to obtain a revicw of the decree} passed or order^{nladc againsthim, may apply for a review} Court^u'hich Passed^{Lhe decreeor} of^{judgmentto tht:} made the^{orde r."}

¶57

13.TheaboveSaidCMAhasbeenfrledagainsttheorder in I.A.No.196^{of 2O7g whereunderthe trial Courtvacated} the status^{quo order' The said order was passedwhile} exercising the^{powers under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC which} reads as follo'a's:

¶58

"Order^{39 Rulc 4 CPC: "Anyorder for an injunctlon may} be discharged,^{or varied, or set aside by the Court'on} application^{made thereto by any party dissatishedwith}

¶59

( I

¶60

l ! ! I I

¶61

1.A. 1,"o.2 of 2L..2 2 i,t < ;/).1 Nc .28 o.J 2O21

¶62

riLr( lr )rdcr rrn<1 lu1) grortncls :rr(. spcc fi(,.1 I - ler LhC ir-st l)1,r^r! ) to llLrlt. I rrlricit ilr(. :tvi rl.iirir,i) ilt., ,.^I1-:', S(⁽ f:rllo . i):. I t:t(l lit,-.0r(i(.1

¶63

l:l .^'l lt(, l- slr( r I d (,n t ,/ clc lc lt clan t No I ltr:s ir11 t h:, ltbltve saicl ir r tC rl( cr,ltr)rt/ appliCatlon olt the .1rc r, r ri titat tite pettt iol lerrt 'oLllci obtain the status quo rtr<lCr r-r plar,;rrg franci on tl.rr riourt. As cor_rlcl be seen frcrt r Ite r tc(rd, the pel.ition(,rs I e:.e in mor.erl an intcrlocLttor.\ al)t)j crrtiort r ide l.1.No.l7.l 1 o'.2016 subsecluent to the ciispos_tl of tirc CMAMP Ncr. O/6 of 2O2O dated 07_ 12.2O1 t ittt rlirr_ rh,.r iilerl mc.ntrr ,lirted 17. I 1.2016 not prcssinil tJt: ,rp1rt.el agarnst r espr nderrl No.3 and \,ithoul infcrr:rr t: thr' sit ici fact to the tri LI Court, the),tried to c()nvlnc( llrt r al L our.t that the Hi51h Cotrrt granted injunction agarnst r rsjpo jtdent Nos.1 ro 3. T tr. 4(h defendant opposed the sarcl n. Ltrctioll petition aDcl li erl counter. Hourever, the trial Court in:;tearcl of disPosinil tl-re interlocutorl. application ()r mrrrlts. direcLed the pu rties to maintirin status quo. ,l.ltc lllv{A u.as disposcd \vrth a rincri.g that rhe petitionrrs hc. _r., r clrurrc have obtain st Lt rs quo *,ithout stating the mrrte _i:rr 1a.rs uttd ortl,.r' \.rs r ol ,)n mel.ils. Therelore. i r ,.r^ r. of tlrc

¶64

I I

¶65

¶66

I.A.No 2 of^{2022 ia CMA N().2a oi 2O21}

¶67

provisions of Orcler 39 Rule^{+ CPC the Court has got} po<sup>rers to discharge^{or variedtl-re ir-tjunction order}

¶68

In order to seek^{revtes' the petitioncrmust showthat} there is a mistake or^{apparetlt error on the face of the} record or they should^{establish sufficient reason for} obtaining revieu'.^{Rcvicuisnot an appeal indisguise} whereby erroneous^{decisions call bcre-heard and} corrected, but it^{is onlv to correct an apparent error'} Therefore, while^{disposing the revieu',the Court cannot} decide the same^{as if it is an appcal and cannot re write its} judgment. Similarly, review cannot^{be ordered on the} ground that the decision^{\ ras \'rong on merits The present} review has been^{soughton the ground that the citations} relied on by the^{petitioners u'as not considered while} disposing CMA.^{The learned counselfor the petitioners} has submitted that^{in the above said judgment,the Apex} Court was^{pleasedto observe that the Courtshouldnot} permit the nature of the^{property being changedunless} and until a case of^{irreparableloss or damagemade out'} The learned counsel^{furtherstated that the4th} respondent/4th^{defendant has becn raising multi storey}

¶69

I.A.M).2 oJ20)2 in C1r,. ,.) 28 oJ tO21

¶70

i I I I

¶71

i I I

¶72

i,Lrrl,lir ' l,' ,\ I rrli\ ,.,,,,.;,--t!, t J)()rlroit olr t jt( i ,rc t( rt \ ()1- ilte I '^{,ilt.'J., -} r.rri r rr.rr ,,1 llre .tcai[io]t of r irr lrc . .)]-( ( t- rt ls ( ilLlsLr'tlt lrl-( )atr.tille lOSs Irt thc petitioltcl-S.

¶73

lir. I1 al)l) ars fro n,r tl,rc record that the st r n,lrs iilccl al)oLrt 10^-, c u-s ago ar-rd the interlocuton, app,l c.rti( n fil(.(l b-r the. lretili >rrer.s u,as not clecided on me rits. It is a,. f lx.r thirt \ itil(:, ir l\arrcing argum(,ltts. learned cotrr_:;.1 lor 1ltr, Pc'titior.rr,'s r. Lccl abol.e relerrcd judgmer.rt I tr also {lr .t thrrl thc.1^' r. ,sponciellr did not claim an.\ r;sht r.r tltl-- o(.r. surl l)r-(,p(,r'(. . The Civil Miscellaneor-ts F.t ,l;:al \.rs disposed u itl- orit an_r, linding about the colttontilt n of thr. petitioner-s ri,i h rr:gard to the alleged en croi rclrrn.-. r.rt {)f rlt(. 4ih defen(lan t.

¶74

¶75

In vic.'.r ol the spccific stand take I br thc q,l delendant that he has not occupied any portron ol t tc land of thc petrtion( rsi and in the light of the contention 01 the petltloners tlta the acts of 4tl, respondent arc (.au lrng rrreparable loss ancl clamagc to the propert', it is r ,rst tncl necessar-. to rl re tr-ial Court to decide the in te r lc,: r-r t on appliczitron lilr.<i bi rh<: periironers licle I.A.No. l73l o.2Oi(r

¶76

¶77

I.A.No.2 oJ^2O22 in^{CIvIANo.28of 2021}

¶78

¶79

slnce the disposal of the sult ma<sup>latkc a^{loug time} Tl'rerefore, the revier,,' can be disposcd \'ith a direction^tcr the trial Court for expeditc disposal of LA.No. 173 I of^{20 16} b_v directing thc parties to maintain stalus^quo.

¶80

i8. In the result, the review petition is disposed with^a direction to the Court belon' to^dispose of^{t.A.No.1731 of} 2106 as expeditiously as^possible. Till such^disposal,the parties to the suit shall maintain status^quo

¶81

Sd/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR I

//TRUE COPY//

sL/--

SECTION OFFICER

To,

1 . The. Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act 1989-Cum-Additional ADistrict Sessions Judge at L.B. Nagar, R.R. District

¶87

One CC to SRl. BANKATLAL MANDHANI, Advocate [OPUC]

¶88

One CC to SRl. A. USHI REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI

¶89

Two CD Copies

NJB

I
i

HIGII^('0I Ii.I ssRN,.t DAFED:29i0312^t23

¶94

ORDER

¶95

CMA.No.2B o1' 2 t21

¶96

.,/: .,
/.
,ii ii ?ffi3

¶97

Review Petition is

¶98

disposed of

¶99

q
\O

K. Praveen Kumar v. T. Kalyan and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Praveen Kumar v. T. Kalyan and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dubbala Vijayalakshmi Vs Pillendla saritha

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Jinukala Komala and 3 Others

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Smt. Manthena Laxmi and 3 Others

Thalluri Krishna Prasad Vs M/s. Sadana Estates

United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Mohd.Hyder

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Annepaka Javi Kumar