Dismissed

Farzana Begum v. Jamia Nizamia and 3 others

Telangana HC14 Jul 2022CRP/1575/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an impugned order that directed urgent notice for an interim injunction application. The Court found no error in the trial court's decision to list the interlocutory application rather than deciding it immediately and requested expeditious hearing.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Court below is requested to expedite the hearing of the interim application.

Farzana Begum Vs Jamia Nizamia and 3 others — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P NAVEEN RAO

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1575 OF 2022

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 05.07.2022 in lA No.503 of 2022 in OS No.2668 ot 2022 on the file of the Court of the Vlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Farzana Begum, Wlo. Zia- UI -Abedin, Aged about 65 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. 11-3-343, 2nd Floor, Amina's Residency, Mallepally, Hyderabad - 500 001.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

Jamia Nizamia, Represented by it's Secretary, 20-3-160, Hussaini Alam, Shiblijung, Hyderabad - 500064.

¶13

Wahed Unissa, Wo Mohd. Mastan, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Housewife, R/o. 20-6-231, Shakkergunj, Hyderabad - 500 065.

¶14

Hena Begum,^\Nlo Alaaz Ullah, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Housewife, Rl/o. 20-6-231 , Shakkergunj, Hyderabad - 500 065.

¶15

Rehmat Bee, Wo Late Bande Ali Khan, Aged about 45 years, Occ.

¶16

Housewife, No.20-6-231, Shakkergunj, Hyderabad - 500 065.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to grant ad interim injunction restraining the respondent No.1 from anyway dealing with the plaint schedule property pending O.S.No.266B ot 2022 on the file of the learned Vlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court and pass such other order or orders.

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. M V DURGA PRASAD

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents :^-

¶22

The Court made the following : ORDER

¶23

PNR,.I ('Rt' No.t 57s of 2D2

¶24

)

¶25

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1575 OF 2022

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred alleging that docket order dated 05.07.2022 made in I.A.No.503 of 2(122 in O.S.No.2668 of 2022 on the file of VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶28

LA.No.503 of 2022 is filed praying to grant ad-irterim injunction restraining the first defendant from anyway dt:aling with the plaint schedule property pending adjudication of the suit. The Trial Court having found that it is necessary to hear the defendants ordered urgent notice and directed I.A., to be listed on 19.O7 .2022.

¶29

Leamed counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that unless injunction is granted, there is every possibility of first respondent/ {irst defendant evicting the respondents 2 t<t 4f defendants 2 to 4, taking possession and dealing with the property. According to her, hrst respondent is claiming property by virtue of a gift deed stated to have been executed by Sadiqa Begum and according to the learned counsel, said gift deed is not valid in law and cannot be enforced. It is not in dispute that

¶30

PNR,J CW No.1575 of 2(t22

¶31

)

¶32

petitioner is not in occupation and some tenants occupied the subject property

¶33

Having regard to the facts in this case, I do not see any error in the decision of the trial Court issuing urgent notice and listing of I.A., on L9 .O7 .2022 for this Court to entertain the Revision at this stage to pass interlocutory order. Therefore, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the Court below is requested to expedite hearing of I.A., and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible,^preferably within a^period of six weeks. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶34

closed.

¶35

--.---

¶36

Sd/- P, PADMANBHA REDDY REGISTRAR

¶37

Note: Amended as per court order dared 26toat2o2zr"d" i" tli:ls"TfANT 2022 by inserting the word _"occupation;-anJ;;ii;g the word "possession" which occurred in para No.3 iu.t ."nln""]'ihis amended order substitutes earlier order aatea lqtOldii *nitn *". dispatched on O4lOBl2022.

¶38

Sd/.P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII '- / ,t, SECTION*OFFICER

¶39

To,

¶40

The VIll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

¶41

one CC to SRt. M V DURGA ineseo, naro"ri.lbpuct

¶42

Two CD Copies.

¶43

One Spare Copy

¶44

¶45

¶46

HIGH COURT DATED:1410712022

¶47

DATED: 2610812022

¶48

AMENDED ORDER CRP.No.1575 of 2022

¶49

DISMISSING THE CRP

¶50

Arn
)
)t') 1
I

Farzana Begum v. Jamia Nizamia and 3 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farzana Begum v. Jamia Nizamia and 3 others

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

Pooja Rathod Vs Tarun Rathod

Yatri Nivas Amogh Workers Vs B.S. Neelakanta

Duggempudi Ravinder Reddy Vs State of Telagana

Mohammed Adil Bin Arif Vs Amrul Ayesha Juveria

K. Satyanarayana Reddy Vs Mr. Kalmeshwar Shingenavar and another

Sri K. Shankar Vs M/s Shriram Chits Pvt. Limited