Dismissed

Mamidi Narsing Rao, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. v. Syed Mukthar Ahmed, Hyderabad, and 5 Otrs.

Telangana HC9 Mar 2022WA/1057/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of the writ appeal arising from a single Judge's order in a property execution matter, opining that execution remedies lie in the appropriate court rather than summary court writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal No. 1057 of 2010 stood disposed of without costs; miscellaneous applications are closed.

Mamidi Narsing Rao, Masab Tank, Hyderabad… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO: 1057 OF 2010

¶6

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 0412-2009 made in W.P. No. 26470 of 2009 on the file of the High Court.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ivlamidi Narsing Rao, S/o. Chandraiah Business R/o. H.No. 10-5-11/3/E, Hima Apartments, Near Diamond Hotel,

¶9

...APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS

¶10

AND

¶11

Syed lVlukthar Ahmed, S/o. Syed Ali Ahmed, Business Rl/o. H.No. 9-447l22lAlB, Hakeem Pet, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad.

¶13

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,, West Zone, Shantinagar,^Hyderabad.

¶14

The Station House Officer,, P.S. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶15

Syed Akthar,, S/o. lmam, Business No.9-4-77h^'1 , Nizam Colony, Towlichowki, Hyderabad.

¶16

Riyaz,, S/o. lmam, Business No.9-4-7711 , Nizam Colony, Towlichowki, Hyderabad.

¶17

(Respondents 5 & 6 are not necessary parties to this

¶18

..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5

¶19

WAMP. NO:2339 OF 2010

¶20

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 pleasedto} suspend the impugned order dated 04-12-2009^{passedby the LearnedSingle} Judge in W.P. No. 26470 of^{2009, pending disposalof the writ appeal,in the} interest of^justice.

¶21

t//

¶22

WAMP. NO: 1574 OF 2013

¶23

Between:

¶24

Syed MuktharAhmed, S/o. Syed Ali Ahmed, Business R/o. H.No. 9-447l22lNB, Hakeem Pet, Hyderabad.

¶25

.,.PETITIONER/RESPONDENT NO. 1

¶26

AND

¶27

'1 . Mamidi Narsing Rao, S/o. Chandraiah Business R/o. H.No. 10-5-11/3/E, Hima Apartments, Near Diamond Hotel, Masab Tank, Hyderabad.

¶28

....RESPONDENTiAPPELLANT

¶29

The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad.

¶30

The Deputy Commissioner of Police,, West Zone, Shantrnagar, Hyderabad.

¶31

The Station House Officer,, P.S. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶32

Syed.Akthar,, S/o. lmam, BusinessNo.g-4-77111, Nizam Colony, Towlichowki, Hyderabad.

¶33

Riyaz,, S/o. lmam, Business No.9-4-7711 , Nizam Colony, Towlichowki, Hyderabad.

¶34

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶35

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 vacate interim stay granted by this Hon'ble Court in W.A.No.1057/2010 dt.O7-j22010.

¶36

Counsel for the Appellant:SRl. N MUKUND REDDY

¶37

Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: SRl. J ASHVINI KUMAR

¶38

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4: Gp FOR HOME

¶39

The Court delivered the following:

¶40

THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶41

'ri

¶42

AND

¶43

THE HoN'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND K SHAVILI

¶44

WRIT APPEAL No.1 O57 of 2010

¶45

JUDGMENTi (Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chand.ra Sharma)

¶46

The present Writ Appeal is arising out of order dated 04.72.2oo9 passed in writ petition No.2647o of 2009.

¶47

The facts of the case reveal that a writ petition was preferred by the petitioner stating that he is absolute owner of house property bearing premises No.9-4-471221A18 tota_lling to 1g0O squa_re yards situate at Hakeempet, Hyderabad, and respondent No.4 in the writ petition is interfering with his possession. The writ petitioner, in those circumstances, preferred a civil suit, being O.S.No.285O of 2004 on the fite of VI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendants therein with his

¶48

HC] &^AKS,J wa 1057-2010

¶49

¶50

and the^{suit was} decreed on peaceful Possession, The facts^{further reveal that executton} 29.O9.2005. preferred^{bY thePetitioner' being} petition^was E.P.No.344^{of 2005, and E'A'No '679 of 2OO5 wasa'lso} preferred^{seekingpolice protection' and a prayer was} also mad'e^{before the trial court to providepolice} protection.^{Thereafter, petitioner submitteda} representation^{dated 06'11'2009to the Station House} Officer,^{Banjara Hills Police Station' Hyderabadto} implement^{the order passed by the trialcourt'} Learned Single^{Judge has disposed of the writ petition} with a direction^{to the officialrespondentsto ensure} compliance of^{the order dated 23'll'2OOS passed by} the VI Junior^{Civil Judge,City Civil Court,Hyderabad'}

¶51

The^{present Writ Appeal has been filed by} respondent No.6^{in Writ Petition No 26470 of 2009'}

¶52

We are in the^{year 2022. In the considered} opinion of this Court,^{if there is judgment and decree} the remedy certainly^{lies somewhere else for its} execution and the^{summary court providesfor a}

¶53

¶54

HCJ & AKS,J wa_lo57_2O1O

¶55

remedy in respect of contingencies arising out of the execution proceedings. Therefore, the present Writ Appeal star-rds disposed of.

¶56

The parties shall be free to file appropriate application before the court where the execution court proceedings are pending.

¶57

With the aforesaid observation, Writ Appeal 1S disposed of. No costs.

¶58

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending

¶59

if any in this Writ Appeal, shall stand closed.

¶60

Sd/. CH, VENKATESWARLU DEPU REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

Pt,4

SECTION OFFICER

The Commissioner of Police,, Hyderabad.

¶66

The Deputy Commissioner of poilce,, West Zone, Shantinagar, Hyderabad.

¶67

The Station House Officer,, p.S. Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

¶68

One CC to Sri. N [,i]ukund Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶69

One CC to Sri. J. Ashvini Kumar, Advocate [OpUC]

¶70

Two CCs to GP for Home ,High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

¶71

Two CD Copies.

M.
I ///

HIGH COURT

DATED:09/03/2022

1 'rl r- /A
o 22AFl'-'
t\ia
'i"{'

¶76

JUDGMENT

¶77

WA.No.1057 of 2010

¶78

Disposing of the WA Without costs.

Mamidi Narsing Rao, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. v. Syed Mukthar Ahmed, Hyderabad, and 5 Otrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamidi Narsing Rao, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. v. Syed Mukthar Ahmed, Hyderabad, and 5 Otrs.

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

M/s. Sirpur Paper Mills Limited Vs The Commissioner of Labour, Government of

M/s.Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd., Sirpur Kagaz nagar,rep.by its Vs The Govt of Ap., rep.by its Secretary, Labour, Employment

Heera Lal Bhai Patel and 5 others Vs B.Upender Reddy and 2 Others

Dundi Kumar, Warangal Dist Vs Secretary, Panchayatraj Dept., New Delhi and 7 Others

Balvinder Singh Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Satya Murhty Sivalenka Vs Govt of Ap., Rep.Byits Prl.Secretary and 2 Oths