Allowed

Ganapavarapu Sharada v. Guttikonda Vijay

Telangana HC16 Nov 2023CRP/2143/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside impugned orders allowing impleadment of parties under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC, as the trial court failed to assign valid reasons and acted merely mechanically.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders dated 29.12.2022 allowing impleadment of applicants as respondent/defendant No. 6 were set aside and the matter remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration.

Ganapavarapu Sharada Vs Guttikonda Vijay — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶6

CIVIL REVISto N PETITION Nos: 2143 AND 2149 oF 2023

¶7

CIVIL REVISIO N PETITION No i 2143 0 F 2023

¶8

Petition Under Anicb 227 of constitution of rndia Aggrieved by the order dated 29-12-2022 in rA.No.505 of 2022 in rA.No.4gs of 2017 in o.s.No.133 ot 2o1r on the file of the court of the pdncipar Junior civir Judge at Kodad, Suryapet District.

¶9

Between

¶10

Ganapavarapu Sharada, S/o. Rajasekhar, aged about 50 years, Occ. House Wife, R/o. H.No. 3-155/1/1, Naya Nagar,^-Near prameeia Towers, Kodad Town and Mandal, Suryapet District.

¶11

AND

¶12

...petitioner/petitioner

¶13

Guttikonda Vijay, S/o. Rajarathnam (Late), age_ 57 years, Occ_ Govt. Emptoyee, RJo. Doprakunra viila^ge, koOid lfiinit, Suryapet oistrict, Presentty residing ar ptot No. 119", Ftat No.a, eipiliNefo;r, VZpa;" Secunderabad.

¶14

lndukuri Mohan Raju, S/o. Ramakrishna prasad Raiu, Age- 52 years, OccB usiness. Rl/o. C-Biock H. No. 1 _ 1 1 srFT/itOO t, ibrtirie io*;:^-il;;'h;;;,, Hyderabad.

¶15

'Fii$Etljlisiltirll{:lijifl.[?Sl'"ffi^{)"tfl";"I?r?f,} !.w??[;, Khammam Cross Road, Kodad Town, Suryipei-Oisirlct.

¶16

Guttikonda Vljay Kumar, S/o. Late prasada Rao, Age 41 years, Occ_ private E mplo yee, Ri/o. Do ra kunta Village, Kodad Mr'nOLi,'"S-r.V"put District.

¶17

Guttikonda Pullaiah, S/o. Rajaratnam, .Age- 4g years, Occ_ private Emplovee. Ryo. Dorakunra Vilage, Kod6d tllanodt, 5r.vrp6iOi"iri"t.

¶18

Jetti Sujatha, Wo. Narsimha Rao, Age 37 years, Occ. Household, RIo. Suvarnapuram Village, Khammam D-istrict.' (Respondents 2 to 6 are not necessary parties to this petition)

¶19

...Respondents/Respondents

¶20

i I I I

¶21

,z 1A NO: 1OF 2023

¶22

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 Jo grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S. No.133 of 2017 on the file of Principal Junior Civil^judge Court at Kodad, Suryapet District, in the interest of Justice, pending disposal of the CRP.

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. V. BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Counsel for the Respondents: Sri. PALLE NAGESWAR RAO

¶24

,'CIVIL REVISION PETITION N o:2149 0F 2023

¶25

Petition Under Arlicle^{227 of constitutionof lndia Aggrievedby the order} datex{ 29-12-2022^{in lA.No.5040f 2022 in o.s.No.1330f 2017 0n thefile of the court} of the Principal^{Junior Civil Judge at Kodad' Suryapet District'}

¶26

Between:

¶27

Between: ---'-GrnrpurarapuSharada,s/o.Rajasekhar,agedaboutS0years'OccHouse Wife, Rl/o. H.No.^{3-155/1/1, Naya Nagar,Near Prameela Towers'Kodad} Town a-nd Mandal,^{SuryapetDistr'ict.} ..Petitioner/Petitioner

¶28

AND

¶29

1 Guttikonda^{Vijay, S/o. Rajarathnam (Late), age-57 years, Occ- Govt} E, Jfov"",^{R/b.'DopraruntaVillage, Kodad Manal,.Suryapet District'} Fi"'."titiv iesiding^{at Plot No.1 19, FlatNo 8, Bapuii Nagar, Yapral'} Secunderabad.

¶30

2 f nOrf.rri-fr4onrn^{Ralu, S/o. Ramakrishna Prasad-Raiu' Ag} e- 52^{years, Occ-} il;;;;r: Fv;^{C-Biock, H No t -11 s/FT/c/601, Fortune r} owers, MadMPur, Hyderabad.

¶31

Guttikonda^{Sugunamma, W/o. Prasad-Rao (Late), Age-72-y99rs,.pc9-} " il;;;;6, Fv6. opp Electricitv^{Sub Station and Cement Bricks Worker'} iih"rnrnr. Cr.o.s^{Rirad, Kodad Town, Suryapet District'}

¶32

Guttikonda^{Viiay Kumar, S/o. Late Prasada Rao, Aq3- 41 years'.Occ- Private}

¶33

Eili;r;;: Fv'.,'Dorakunta Village, Kodad Mandal, Suryapet District'

¶34

Guttikonda^{Pullaiah,s/o. Rajaratnam, Age- 48 years,occ-Private Employee,} ' Ry;.'Dilkrnia Village, Kod;d Mandal' Suryapet Distr'tct'

¶35

6 Jetti Suiatha, W/o.^{Narsimha Rao, Age 37 years, Occ' Household' R/o'} Suvarnipuram^{Village, Khammam District'} ad;;il;;;"lt^{2 b d are not necessary parties to this Petition)}

¶36

.'-ResPondents/ResPondents

¶37

IA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶38

Petition under^{Section 151 CPC praying thatin the circumslancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition'the High Courtmaybe pleased to} grant stay of all further^{proceedings in O'S No'133 of 2017 on the file of} Principal Junior^{Crvil judge Courtat Kodad, SuryapetDistrict' in the interestof} Justice,^{pending disposal of the CRP'}

¶39

Counsel for^{the Petitioner: Sri' V' BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY}

¶40

Counsel for the^{Respondents:Sri' PALLE NAGESWAR RAO}

¶41

The Court made^{the following:COMMON ORDER}

¶42

IION'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY

¶43

CTVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2143 AND 2149 of 2023 COMMON ORDER:

¶44

-C.R.P.No.2143 of 2023 is l-rled, aggrieved by the order, dated 29.12.2022 passed in I.A.No.5O5 ot 2022 in I.A.No.495 of 2Ol7 in O.S.No. 133 of 2Ol7 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, wherein an application made under Order I Rule 10 (21 read, with Section 151 of C.P.C. praying to implead the proposed party as respondent No.6 in the I.A., was allowed.

¶45

C.R.P.No.2149 of 2023 is filed, aggrieved by the order, dated 29.72.2O22 passed in I.A.No.5O4 ot 2022 in O.S.No.133 of 2Ol7 on the frle of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, wherein an application made under Order I Rute 1O (2) read with Section 151 of C.P.C. praying to implead the proposed party as defendant No.6 in the suit, u,as allou,ed.

¶46

Since the issue involved in both the Civil Revision Petitions is interconnected, they arc being disposed of by this common order.

¶47

¶48

Respondent No. 1/ petitioner/ plaintiff frled O.S.No.133 of 2Ol7 seeking permanent injunction against defendant Nos.l to 5, who tried to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment. Respondent No. 1/petitioner/plaintiff has filed applications under Order I Rule 1O (21 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to implead the petitioner herein as respondent No.6 in LA.No.495 ot 2Ol7 and defendant No.6 in O.S.No. 133 of 2017. The case of respondent No. 1/petitioner/plaintiff is that during the pendency of O.S.No. 133 of 2017, defendant No.l has executed a registered sale deed bearing document No.46O3 of 2O2l in favour of the petitioner herein creating her rights over the property. It is the further case of respondent No. 1/plaintiff that the alienation made in favour of the petitioner/ proposed respondent No.6 is illegal and the same is created behind his back only in order to deprive his legitimate right by creating bogus registered sale deeds. By an order, dated 29.12.2022, the said applications were allowed. Against the saicl orders, the present Civil Revision Petitions are hled.

¶49

4 The grievance o[ the petitioner herein is that no reasons were assigned b,v the learnecl Junior Civil Judge for

¶50

¶51

impleading her as respondent No.6 in I.A.No.495 of 2Ol7 rn O.S.No.133 of 2Ol7 and defendant No.6 in O.S.No. 133 of 20t7.

¶52

Iearned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that while allowing the said implead applications, the learned Junior Civil Judge has not assigned any valid reasons and the same does not satisfi the requirements of Order I Rule 10. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶53

This Court has carefully perused the orders, dated 29.12.2022 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge and the same disclose that no valid reasons were assigned by the learned Junior Civil Judge while allowing I.A.Nos.5O4 and 5O5 of 2022, except stating that "heard both sides, as not objected, issue notice to the proposed respondent/ defendant and petitions are allowed'. Since the learnecl Junior Civil Judge has not assigned any reasons, the impugned orders d,ated 29.12.2022 are liable to be set aside.

¶54

In view of the above, the impugnecl orders, ciated 29.12.2022 are hereby set aside and the matters are remanded back to the trial Court, for fresh consideration of

¶55

¶56

I.A.Nos.504 and 505 of 2022 on merits by assigning valid

¶57

reasons

¶58

Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are

¶59

allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶60

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,

¶61

pending in this Civil Revision Petition, shall stand dismissed.

¶62

Sd/. P. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1'ThePrincipalJuniorCivilJudgeatKodad'SuryapetDistrict.

¶67

One^{CC to SRI'V' BRAHMAIAHCHOWDARY' Advocate IOPUCI}

¶68

One^{CC to SRI' PALLE NAGESWAR RAO' Advocate IOPUCI}

¶69

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶70

PSR tr\ .)--

HIGH COURT

CVBR,J

DATED:1611112023

COMMON ORDER

CRP.Nos.214g OF 2023 AND 2149 0F 2023

¶76

--<br>...''.
(ci- N,
-)
a)
1 5 liB liiil :r>[,z
.L

OF ,:o

¶77

D'SPOS'NG CRP's WITHOUI COSIS.

¶78

\w 6 \z \z+

Ganapavarapu Sharada v. Guttikonda Vijay

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganapavarapu Sharada v. Guttikonda Vijay

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

Kurella Sharadamba Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. Santhapuram Anil Kumar, Vs The State of Telangana

G. Santosh, Vs The State of Telangana

Kelavath Sree Rama Naik, Vs The State of Telangana

N. Madan Mohan Reddy Vs State of Telangana

Panduga Shiva Shankar Reddy Vs The State of Telangana