Dismissed

Boorla Amarnath, Hyderabad v. L Harish Gandhi, Secunderabad and 11 Others

Telangana HC17 Oct 2022CRP/2560/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the trial court's order impleading subsequent purchasers as necessary parties in a specific performance suit. Despite the appellant's claim of prior purchase, the High Court found no merit in quashing the order but directed the trial court to expedite the suit's disposal within four months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to expedite disposal of the original suit within four months from receipt of the order.

Boorla Amarnath, Hyderabad Vs L Harish Gandhi… — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

[³²¹⁸ ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURTfOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

IVONDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

¶7

CIVIL REVISION P ETITION NO: 2560 oF 2015

¶8

Petition under Articre 227 ot the constitution of rndia aggrieved by the order dated 23-01-2013 passed in r.A.No.753 of 2011in o.s.No.171 of 2008 on the fire of the Court of the Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Boorla Amarnath, S/o. Sri B. Kanthaiah, aged about 45 years, Occ. service R/o.t$f,ttl o.29,^poorna Gayathri Residenc! r_a_sisir07r';"i,' ir,irt"+iirv, Hyderabad

¶11

AND

¶12

...Petitioner/Respondent No.1 1/Defendant No.1 1

¶13

I L. Harish Gandhi. S/o. late Sri Linga Lakshmiah, aged about 66 years, Occ: business R/o. 10-3-188, St. JorrniRoao si]Jl"i*XL.o

¶14

... RespondenUpetitioner/plaintiff

¶15

2 Smt. K. Shivarani. Wo. Sri.K. prakash Goud, aged about 59 years, Occ: household R/o. 3-6-369/4/2, SrO rroor, nrrr'erlilrg Street No.1, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad.

¶16

,a M/s' Gayatri Deverooers- reprgsented by its pa(ner sri Vajrara Krishnaiah Office at 16-11-171, Flat No-.104 firurnaia npa?mEnis , 'AesiOe S.A.H. Moosarambagh X Roads, nyoeraOat.^{- -'rrvr!!rrvrrLo}

¶17

4 Sri Vajrala Krishnaiah. S/o 9ri V. Venkaiah, aged about 73 years Occ : business, office at 16-11_771, Hat rrro.ibz iiriin;l;Jurt."nts, Beside S.B.H. Moosarambagh X Roabs, iyderrb;:'""'"'- ^,

¶18

Sri Anugu Rama Rao.. S/o. late Sri V.Vengal Rao aged about 49 years. Occ: business office at 1 6- 1 1 _7 7 1, Ft;t No-. i 0;H;r;;rJvnllrtments, sesioe s.B.H. Moosarambagh X Ro;ds; Hy;e;;ur;.'"^"'," ^"

¶19

...Respondents/Respondents 1 to 4/Defendants No.1 to 4

¶20

Smt. Akula Sadhana Ramana A/urthy, W/o. Sri A.V..Ramana tvlurthy aged about 48 years, Occ: business At. 't' il_SzZl', C'nif raopalf y, Hyderabad.

¶21

7 Smt. Sangana Lalitestrwari, w/o. Sri s.antosh Kumar, aged about 41 years occ: Service, R/o. 1-B-T24iAl2gll, wrttrr.rni, H;i;;;;rd _ s00 044.

¶22

1. Sri tt/iriyala Bruhas p.?!hy, S/o. Sri lviryitqplikshapathy, aged about 45 years

¶23

Occ: Service, R/o. Htc-1, Btock-1, Ftat,N0.6 Baghi;g;;pirty, Hyoerrodot

¶24

Sri lvarella Hanumantha Rao, s/o. sri M.Bhaskar Rao, aged about 45 years R/o. G-5 sree chakra Apartments #1 -1-7grits. cniiirrdffirv, Hij"rriuo

¶25

10.sri tv. Vittaleshwar,'S/o. Sri chinnaiah, aged about 55 years, occ: service R/o. H r G-2, B rock-2, Frat No. 1 o, aa g h r ih# ;p; iiy en i rirlo pa rivl ir"voiia nao

¶26

1 1 . sri R. Vishwanath, s/o. Iate R.L.N.. Varaprasad Sastry aged about 33 years,, Occ. Service R/o. 1-B-456t2. Chikkadp;iiy, [il#6a0.

¶27

" n3,[';,[,], Hi"3,"-"d'Y,'iu?i'iJn,[[:iT,[rillIas,.n"oXs:,,t^{48 vears occ:}

¶28

(respondents No.2 to 12 are not necessary parties to this revision)

¶29

"'Respondents/Respondents No.5 to 10 & l2lDefendants No.1 to 10 & 12

¶30

l.A. O:1OF 015(CRPMP. NO: 3432 0F 1s)

¶31

Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to pass an order staying all further proceedings in the suit in o.s.No. 171 of 200g on the file of the Xl Additional chief Judge, city civir court, Hyderabad.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI SHYAM S AGRAWAL

¶33

counsel for the Respondent No.1: sRl THOMAS GEoRGE ANp OSSocSS\sorlJ The Court made the following: ORDER

¶34

/.//

¶35

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENI(ATESHWARA REDDY CryIL REVISION PETITION NO.256O OF 2015 ORDER

¶36

The petitioner - defendant No.1 t has filed this Civil Revision Petition assailing the orders dated 23.OI.2013 in I.A.No.753 of 2O11 in O.S.No.17l of 2OO8 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

¶37

This Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.753 of 20ll was filed by the plaintiff to amend the plaint by adding respondent Nos.S to 12 as defendant Nos.S to 12 in the cause titie and also for consequential amendment in the prayer portion of the plaint. The trial Court has allowed the said application and impleaded respondent Nos.S to 12 as defendant Nos.S to 12 in the main suit on the ground that they have purchased the constructed suit complex during pendency of the suit and they are necessary parties to the suit and accordingly, the respondent Nos.S to 12 therein were brought on record in the array of defendant Nos.5 to 12.

¶38

Though the defendant Nos.S to 12 were brought on record through the impugned order dated 23.O1.2013, it._

¶39

AVR,J cRP 2560 20r5

¶40

¶41

is the defendant No. 1 1, alone filed this civil revision petition assailing the said orders alleging that the Court below has passed the orders in a mechanical manner without looking into the contents of the counter and lailed to appreciate the fact that the defendant No.1l has purchased the said flat through sale deed dated 75.04.2006, the court below has failed to appreciate the fact that the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 24.o3.2oo4 is filed against defendant Nos. I to 4 and obtained ad-interim injunction restraining them from alienating the suit schedule propertJr. The very observation of the trial court that the proposed parties have admitted to have purchased the suit schedule property during pendency of the suit is not correct. As a matter of fact, the suit was filed only in respect of propert5r bearing house No.1-8-579/2oro, 1-8-s19/Lo/1 to No.1-8-sr g/ro/T on plot No.29 admeasuring s35 sq.yards, situated at chikkadpally, Hyderabad. original suit was filed on 18.03.2008 whereas according to registered -sare deed dated 15-04.2006, the petitioner has purchased the flat fn!-ch before filing of suit.

AVR,J cRP_2560 2015

-l

4 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner^and respondents. Submissions made on either side^have received due consideration of this^Court.

¶46

For the sake of convenience, the^{parties to this} revision petition are hereinafter^{referred to as plaintiffand} defendants as arrayed in the original suit

¶47

The plaintiff has filed the original suit^for specific performance of agreement sale dated^24.O3.2OO4 and for consequential injunction in respect of suit^schedule property, indicated above. The suit was filed on 18.03.2008 and thereafter the^plaintiff has filed^I.A.No.753 of 2O11 for amendment of pleadings in the plaint by adding respondent Nos.S to 12, who are the defendant Nos.5 to¹² and also for consequential amendments. The^proposed parties have resisted this application, more particularly the revision petitioner herein, who is the respondent No.11, has filed a detailed counter denying the petition averments but learned Judge of the trial Court has^{not taken into} consideration the^{avermentsof the counter filed by revision} petitioner and simply passed the order stating that^as

¶48

AVR.J cRP_2560_20 I 5 il

¶49

¶50

admitted by proposed parties, they a_re subsequent purchasers of the suit schedure property during pendency of the suit. But this observation made by the trial court is against the record and the averments of the counter, filed by respondent No.11 - revision petitioner herein.

¶51

Be it stated that out of the defendant Nos.s to 12, newly added parties, only defendant No.l t has been assailing the order impugned on various grounds inter a.lia alleging that much before filing of the suit itself he has purchased a flat and that as on the date of firing of the suit, the suit schedule property was not an open plot but it was a residential flat and material facts were suppressed by the plaintiff. It may be noted that as per the submissions made by rearned counser for the respondents, evidence on behalf of plaintiff is crosed long back and the suit is being adjourned only for defendants, evidence and that all the parties, who are newry added in the suit, have filed their respective written statements. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the suit, fired in the year 2oog,I am of the considered opinion that it is suffice to direct the trial

I \

I I I :'

AVR,J cRP*2560_201 5

Court to expedite the disposal of original suit instead of looking into the merits or otherwise of the order impugned.

¶58

\ ('t

¶59

However considering the fact that the original suit is filed in the year 2OO8 and as per the case status information, evidence on behalf of plaintiff was closed long back and the suit is being adjourned for defendants' evidence from 2O.O3.2O18 onwards, without looking into the merits or otherwise of the order impugned, as proposed parties were brought on record in the array of defendants as defendant Nos.S to 12 and the original suit is filed for specific performance of agreement of sale, plaintiff's evidence is concluded, the suit is being adjourned for the last three years only for defendants'evidence, I am inclined to direct the Court below to expedite the disposal of original suit and shall make every endeavour to dispose of the sarne within four months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

¶60

It may be stated that the defendant No.11 is at liberty to raise all such pleas that are raised in the revision petition or in the counter in I.A.No.753 of 2OLI by filing

AVR..!
cRP 2560 20t5

written statement if not yet filed and adduce evidence in support of his pleadings about the alreged purchase of flat under sale deed dated 15.04.2006. It is needress to mention that if the defendant No.11 has already filed the written statement, he shall proceed with the trial without filing any additional written statement.

¶65

1o- In the result, this civil Revision petition is dismissed confirming the order impugned dated 23-01.2013 iq I.A.No.753 of 2o11 in o.s.No. rzr of 2oo8 on the file of the xI Additionar chief Judge, city civil courts at Hyderabad with a direction to the trial court to expedite the disposal of original suit itself and shafl make every endeavour to dispose of the same within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In the circumstances of the base, there shalt be no order as to the costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

¶66

stands closed.

¶67

SD/.B.SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// C+ SECTION^OFFICER

¶68

To, 1. The Xl Additional^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court'-Hyd-e} ). onl Cc to^{sri diivam S Agriwal, Advocatelg.qggf} 5. o;; CC io^{sriin6mu. GebrgeAdvo-cqle[oPUC]} 1. io CO CoPies' - Essoctqko\ gbrW

rabad.

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1711012022

sTATE
{
6t
:)
$T JIN SE
,J *
+ D ES PN

¶75

ORDER

¶76

CRP.No.2560 of 2015

¶77

DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS

¶78

a^et?(d W 4@u*

Boorla Amarnath, Hyderabad v. L Harish Gandhi, Secunderabad and 11 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boorla Amarnath, Hyderabad v. L Harish Gandhi, Secunderabad and 11 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

The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad Vs B.Mahesh Kumar

Anganti Rajamallu Vs Kasam Madhusudhan Reddy and 9 others

Anganti Rajamallu Vs Kasam Madhusudhan Reddy

Poloju Rajitha Murthy Vs Malleshawaram Venkata Satyanarayana Rao

B Anjaiah, Vs B Vishnu Murthy [Died as per Lrs]

D Harihara Prasad, Vs T. Anasuya Devi