Allowed

Gulam Haqquani v. Rapola Nagarjuna Reddy

Telangana HC3 Apr 2023AS/1070/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal filed by the defendant against a decree for specific performance. Setting aside the lower court's decision, the court remanded the matter for a fresh trial from the stage of cross-examination of specific witnesses, directing expeditious disposal within six months and continuation of an injunction order.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; judgment and decree set aside; matter remanded to trial court for fresh trial from cross-examination stage; injunction order continued.

Gulam Haqquani Vs Rapola Nagarjuna Reddy — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t³³⁴⁰ I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. NAVEEN^RAO AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶7

APPEAL SUIT No 107 0 oF 2018

¶8

Appeal Under Section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree^Dated 06.11.2017 made in O.S. No. 24 ol 2015 on the file of the^Court of the^{V Additional} District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gulam Haqquani, S/o. Late Gulam Mustafa, aged^{64 years Occ: agriculture,} R/o. Koheer Mandal Medak District,^presently residing at H^{No, 12-2-} 8231C160, SBI Colony Santhosh Nagar, Near St. Anns^College Medhdipatnam' Hyderabad 500 028

¶11

...A''ELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶12

AND

¶13

Rapola Nagarjuna Reddy, S/o. Late R. Chendra Reddy,^{aged 58 yearsOcc.} business, Fyo. H No. 1-5-1l1, Skeet No.8/21,^{Habsiguda Hyderabad}

¶14

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF

¶15

IA NO: F 2023

¶16

Between

¶17

Gulam Haqquani, S/o. Late Gulam Mustafa, aged 64^{years Occ:agriculture,} R/o- Koheer Mandal Medak District,^presently residing at H^{No. 12-2-} 823lCl6O, SBI Colony Santhosh Nagar, Near St. Anns^College Medhdipatnam, Hyderabad 500 028

¶18

...APPELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶19

AND

¶20

Rapola Nagarjuna Reddy, S/o. Late R. Chendra^{Reddy, aged 58 years Occ} business, R/o. H No. 1-5-1/1 , Street^{No. 8/21} ,^{Habsiguda Hyderabad}

¶21

...RESPON DENT/PLAINTIFF

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumslances^stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Court may be pleased to}

¶23

in LA \o.2 of 2018ⁱⁿ vacate the^nt,3ri n^{stay dated12-09-2019granted} A.S.No.1O7() ol^{2118 in the interest of justice and} cass :iu,)h,)ther^orderor orders.

¶24

IANO:2 OF 2023

¶25

Petition unt er section^{151 cPcprayingthat in the circum:;tances stated} in the affidavit lile J^{n support of the petition, the High Cour' ntaybe p eased to} grant interint inlurcton order^{restrainingthe respond€)nt/apF'elanl or his agents} 6r servants^{,lr any )cdy claiming through him fromchangingthe nature of the suit} land till the <l spoi rl oi^{the above Appeal,and passsu(.hothe r ,rdt:ror orders.}

¶26

lA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶27

Petition un( er Section^{151 CPC prayingthat in the cir<;um:;tancesstated} in the affidavit lile^{jn support of the petition, the Higl'cour: nlay be pleased lo} grant interim inlur ct on order restraining^{the responde!nt/aptre anl or his agents} 6r servants or clrrinting^{anybody through him from irlienatirrry o' creating any} charge over the^{sr it Iand suit land till the disposal of theabo re Aplleal,and pass} such other 6;fls1^{6 - 6rrflers.}

¶28

Counsel for the A )pellant:^{SRISABJAN SHAIK}

¶29

Counsel for the^R )spondent:^{SRIK. VENKATA RAM REDDY}

¶30

The Court deliver, 'd the^{following:JUDGMENT}

¶31

¶32

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

¶33

AND

¶34

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAXA

¶35

APPEAL SUIT NO.1O7O OF 2018

¶36

JUDGMENT r Hon'ble Si Justice P.Nqueen Rao

¶37

The appellant herein is the defendant and respondent is the plaintiff in O.S.No.24 of 2015. O.S.No.24 of 2015 was filed in the Court of V Additional District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy by the plaintiff/respondent praying to grant decree of specific performance of agreement of sale by the defendant/ appellant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant offered to sell Ac.6-O9Yz guntas spread over in various survey numbers (Sy.No.94/ 6a,

¶38

Sy.No.94lea, Sy.No.94leo:, Sy.No.94l6a, Sy.No.94l5, Sy.No.94l5, Sy.No.94lero, Sy.No.94lee, Sy.No.94les, Sy.No.94la, Sy.No.94l6a, Sy.No.94l6a, Sy.No.94l6., Sy.No.94l6a, Sy.No.94leo, Sy.No.94lee, Sy.No.94lee, Sy.No.94les, Sy.No.94l6a, Sy.No.94l6, Sy.No.94l6, Sy.No.94/eeo, Sy.No.94/eoo) of Rajanelli Village, Koheer Mandal, Medak District, the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.26,10,00O/-. The plaintiff and defendant have entered into an agreement of sale on 14.11.20 14 and plaintiff paid an amount of Rs.1,OO,O00/-. Alleging that even though plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of agreement by paying full sale consideration, .the defendant did not come forward to execute the salc deed,^plaintiff instituted O.S.No.24 of 2O15. The suit was contested^{by the delendantin person. The defendant} did^{not turn}

¶39

"- 'r' /

¶40

¶41

up to cross-exa nine p\,s.l and 2, even thouglsuffi( i lnt opportunity wds given^-"o hitn anr Iailed to zrdduce anv evidence n :iul)t)lrt of his averments in thc writtt:n sti temcnt.

¶42

2' on a.ah'zi rg, *re evidence brought on reccrd by t.re rrain tiff, the trral court decre d th : r;uit directir-rg the defendant to execrt(r tr Lc registered sale deed in far our rf plaintiff in rcspect oI thc :.;ui: s,i:lredule property by receiving th. bal: n:e sarr: considcration within trrree rnr ntrrs fr,m the date of decrec fe,rli.g u-hich the plaintiff would get the r(:gisterecl sale deed cxecuted throutgl the Court within two monIrrs tl r:realier. Aggrieved thereby, this appc tl is prelerrcd by the defendant.

¶43

In addrtion to several other contenlions urqecl agz,inst thr: judgment and decree rendt re d by the trial Court, it is also c.r n1t:nderl that the defendarrt m.t rr"i1h a. accidcnt in thc year 2orz at,.r ll errrfore. could not come foru,arcL t. c rc,ss-examir-re pws. I and, 2; that the clefendart *.as bed ridden a.rcl tl'.rofi) -e, courd not attcnd the court ancr furt-rer cross-examine the witnesses All l-rese aspecl_s were not appreciated kry ,lrrr trial Courl.

¶44

4' Lezrrnecl c,.-rser for the praintiff/ responde.r t lir;rr.z submitted that having regard to tl e fact thal the dcfe ndant met u,ith e n acrrident, he was unable to com: to ( ot_rrr to cross-examine the witne,jses € n(l t(, 1ea(l evidence in support of I Lis c. rt,'ntions, the appeal may be afirwr:d rn that ground and the matter ma' be r ernanded to the triar court for crnsid:r.rti.n afresh from the stage of crr,ss-e> atnination of pws.1 and 2.

¶45

-4

¶46

Having regard to this fair submission, we allow the appeal setting aside the judgment and decree dated 6. Il.2Ol7 passed in O.S.No.24 of 2015 by the V-Additional Distric[ Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy and remand the matter to the trial court for consideration afresh, from the stage of crossexamination of Pws. I and 2. The defendant/appellant shall attend to the Court regularly and shall cross-examine the witnesses pws.l and 2 on the date hxed by the trial Court and lead evidence if any in support of his contentions on the dates fixed by the trial court. since the suit is of the year 2075, we direct the trial Court to conduct trial and conclude the proceedings, as expeditiously as possible, prelerably within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. If the appellant/ defendant does not cooperate in cross-examination of pws. 1 and 2 and leading evidence on his behalfon the dates hxed by the Court, it is open to the trial Court to proceed with the case in accordance with law. Having regard to the peculiar facts of this case, we deem it proper to direct continuation of injunction order granted on 19.03.2015 till disposal of the suit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

¶47

SD/- M. VIJAYA BHASKAR JOINIREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// (& sEcTtoN oFFtcER

¶48

To, , 1. The V Additional Qistlig!L_qQge, Medak at Sanga Reddy (with records) 2. One CC to SRI SABJAN SHAIK, Advocate IOPUCI 3. 9ne 99^{to SRI K. VENKATA RAM REDDY,AOvoc'ate} 1OpUC1 4. Two CD Copies BN N}-

HIGH COUII'[

DATED:031)412023

JUDGMEN']'

AS.No.107( of 2018

=<br>,-,..:-,.}
I
! 1l'lt i
i
t, i
)i

¶54

ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT C;OSTS o *^rvs

¶55

[³³⁴⁰ I

¶56

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶57

MONDAY, THE THIRD^{DAY OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYTHREE

¶58

PRESENT

¶59

THE HONOURABLE^SRI JUSTICE^{P. NAVEEN RAO} AND

¶60

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA}

¶61

APPEAL SU lT NO:¹⁰⁷⁰ OF²⁰¹⁸

¶62

Between:

¶63

Gulam Haqquani, S/o.^{Late Gulam Mustafa'aged 64 years Occ: a-griculture,} nlo. konebi Mandal Medak^{District, presently residing at H No12-2-} 823tCt6O, SBI Colony^{SanthoshNagar,Near St. AnnsCollege} Medhdipatnam' Hvderabad⁵⁰⁰ 028

¶64

...A''ELLANT/DEFENDANT

¶65

AND

¶66

Raoola Naoariuna Reddv, S/o.^{Late R. Chendra Reddy, aged58 years Occ} nGness, {lol H ruo.^{1-5'-il1,Street No. 8/21,Habsiguda Hyderabad}

¶67

...RESPONDENT/PLAINTI^FF

¶68

Appeal Under Section 96^{of C.P.C againstthe Judgmentand DecreeDated} 06.11.2017 made in o.S.^{No. 24 0f 2015 0n the file of the court of the V Additional} District Judge, Medak at^Sangareddy.

¶69

This appeal coming on for^{hearingand upon perusing the grounds of appeal,} the Judgment and^{Decreeof the Lowercourt and the material papers in theSuit and} upon hearing the arguments^{of SRI SHAIK SABJANfor the Appellantand SRI K'} VENKATA RAM REDDY,^{Advocate for the Respondent.}

¶70

This Court Doth Order and^{Decreeas Follows:}

¶71

1 . That the appeal be and^{herebyallowed settingaside the judgment and decree} dated 06.11.2017^{passed in O.S. No.24l15by the V Additional District Judge} Medak at Sanga Reddy^{and remainedthe matter to trial courtfor} consideration afresh^from the^{Stage of CrossExamination and of PWS1 & 2}

¶72

That the defendant shall^{attend to the court regularly and shall cross examine} the witness PWS^{1 & 2 on the datefixedby the trial courtand lead evidence if} any in support of^{his contentions on the datesfixed by the trial court'}

¶73

That since the suit^is of^{year 2015, the trial} rcourt^{to conduct trial and conclude} the proceedings as expeditiously^{as possible preferably withina period of six} months from the date of^{receiptof copy of this Judgment.}

¶74

4 lLg! f the rp pellanudefendant does not cooper,rte i, cr,rss exanrination of PWS i &2 z nc leading evidence on nis Oenatiln the Oates fixe,d by 15s 6.rrt, it is open to ht., trial court to proceed with the case in accor(jan(te with the law.

¶75

5 That rraving r€'gard to the pecuriar tact of tnis ca.e, dir--c ed continuation of injunction or^je. granted on 19.03.20.15 tilt OspLJ o fre srlt.

¶76

To,

¶77

//TRUE coPY//

¶78

SD/. M, VIJATA BHASKAR JolN'R)EGlsrRAR st:cTldfi oFFtcER

¶79

1 . The V Adcljtir nal District J^udge, tvledak at Sanga Reddy (\vjt I records ) 2. one c I tc, s l SABJAN snAiK. ft;;;;i..-rAiY;;; i ?,ls 3l; 3;? li* VENKATA RAM REDDV:ili#rte foF,u rl

BN *,X-')-s-

HIGH COUTIT

DATED:0311t412023

DECREE

AS.No.1070 of 2018

ALLOWING THE APPEAL SUIT WITHOUT CC)STS

¶86

r) 4

Gulam Haqquani v. Rapola Nagarjuna Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulam Haqquani v. Rapola Nagarjuna Reddy

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. Vinayak steels Limited Vs M/S.Om Vishnu Pipes Pvt.Ltd.

State Bank of India Vs M/s Om Vishnu Pipes Pvt. Ltd.

Tata Consumer Products Limited Vs Itc Limited

The State Bank of India Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Jogipet Unit

State Bank of India Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer