Dismissed

Mangi Venkata Swamy v. Mohd. Ghouse

Telangana HC22 Nov 2023CRP/2043/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging an order allowing publication under Order I Rule 8(1) read with Section 151 CPC. The Court held that no notice to the petitioner was required for such an application.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision petition was dismissed, the impugned order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge was affirmed, and the filing of further petitions was stayed.

Mangi Venkata Swamy Vs Mohd. Ghouse — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

TflE HONOT'RABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION NO:²⁰⁴³ OF 2023

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved^{by the order dated} 15.03.2022 in l.A.No. 24112022 in O.S.No. 34 of 2022 on^{the Court of the ll} Addititional District and Session Judge(FTC) Mahabubnagar.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Mangi Venkata Swamy, S/o. Mangi Venakataiah, Aged about^{36 years, Occ.} Business . No. 1-7-911 , Patha Tota,^{Mahabunagar District.}

...Petitioner/

Respondenu Defendant

AND

1 . Mohd. Ghouse, S/o. Mohd. Shaik^{Hussain, Aged} about^{65 years, Occ. Business,} Rr/o. H.No. 3-1-99/1 Veerannapet locality^{Mahaboobnagar District.}

¶14

Mohd. Aktar Aziz, S/o. Mohammad Abdul^Khadir Aged^{about 61 years,Occ. Retried} Employee Rl/o. 3-4-87, Kummariwada^{Near Madina Masjid, Mahabubnagar Townand} District

¶15

Mohd. lshak, S/o. Mohd. Yusuf, Aged about 50^{years, Occ. Government Employee} Ryo. 14-2-69, Police lines, Viveknanda^{Nagar, Mahaboobnagar}

¶16

...Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs

¶17

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying {hat in the Circumstarrces statedⁱⁿ the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^{pleased to grantinterim stay of} all further proceedings in O.S No. 34 ot 2022, on the file of^{lV Addl. District and} Sessions Judge at Mahabbobnagar,^pending disposal of main^CRP,

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. L HARISH, Advocate

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: RAJAGOPALLAVAN TAYI, Advocate

¶21

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶22

\ \

¶23

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURTNDER

¶24

CTVTL REVISI ON PETITTON NO .20,43 0F 2o/2s

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

The petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit is aggrieved by the docket order dated 15.O3.2O22 in I.A.No.241 of 2022 in O.S.No.34 of 2022, ailowing the IA and directing issuance of publication in Telugu Eenadu Daily Newspaper pursuant to application filed under Order I Rule g(l) of C.p.C r/w Section 151 CpC.

¶27

The impugned order dated 15.03.2022 is as follows:

¶28

"Heard Iearned counsel for the petitioner. perused the petition and affidavit. ln the circumstances mentioned the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to issue publication in Telugu Eenadu daity newspaper. publication by next date of suit first appearance."

¶29

l.earned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who is the defendalt in the main suit argued that such orders cannot be passed without assigning any reasons. Further, the learned District and Sessions Judge ought to have issued notice to the defendant and should have given a chance to agitate his grievalce before passing the order.

¶30

Briefly, the case is that there are numerous plot owners in the lay out and therefore, they have some interest as that of the

¶31

¶32

lI 1

¶33

plaintiff^{Nos' 1 to 3. The petitioner herein is the defendant trying to} interfere^{with the peaceful possesslonand enjoYment of the} . Since^{there are} plaintiffsplotsandothelowllels!nthesuitlayout ptaintiffs^{f to S} numerous^{plot ownerswho purchasedplots' the} sought^{permissionto sue the respondent on theif behalf'} 5. ln^{pursuance of the said applicationfrled' the} impugned

¶34

orders^werePassed'

¶35

The^{impugned orders are bereft of any facts and reasons'} However,^{the Court need not issue notice to the respondentto} agitate^{in the applicationhled under OrderI RuIe 8(l) of CPC'}

¶36

In the^{event of any other plot owners approachingthe Court} with^{a prayer to add them as partiesto the suit' the same shall be} considered^{on the facts and circumstances statedby the said plot}

¶37

owTlers.

¶38

With^{the said observation'ttre Civil Revision Petition rs} disposed^{off' Conseqr'rently'miscellaneousapplications'if any'} shall^{stand clg-sed'} sd/-^{P.GOWRI SHAN}

¶39

sd/-^{P.GOWRI SHAN} ASSIS^{TANT RE} ,TTRUE^COPY/' SECTION^O ICER

::: To

The of^{lV Addl'District and Sessions Judge at Mahabbobnagar'}

¶44

The ll^{Additional District and Sessions Judge [FTC] Mahabubnagar}

¶45

3 One^{CC to Sri. L HARISH'Advocate [OPUC]} 4 One^{CC to STi RAJAGOPALLAVANTAYI' Advocate [OPUC]} 5 Two^{CD CoPies}

ANS,r

.HIGH COURT

'1,:1. Tt . J, r

¶50

.DATED:2211112923

¶51

rti ,it t{t I ry,iti 'at{ ttr IB :t! :

¶52

oRDER l1: :t.ia ,YcRP.No.2043 of 2023

¶53

1y{E S TArA
o
oo5q 2 7 JAII 2Si[ b
* {'
* oEspfi c

¶54

:.,

¶55

lt .j.,it q;! fl 'ti_r, r ryiⁱ

¶56

iDISPOSING.OF THE CRP

¶57

\q^\i\t-"' 'A'!*

Mangi Venkata Swamy v. Mohd. Ghouse

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangi Venkata Swamy v. Mohd. Ghouse

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

K.Narayanappa Vs the State of Telangana

BonthalaAishwarya Vs The State of Telangana

Annam Veerraju, And Another Vs The State of Telangana, And Another

Ahmed Mohiuddin, Vs The Sttate of Telangana

K. Ravi Prakash Reddy Vs K.Rakshitha , Jyothi and 3 others

Mr. Kalyan Kagithapu Vs The State of Telangana