Allowed

Smt.NerelliVijayalaxmi v. Sri.Chinnala Raju and 7 others

Telangana HC27 Jan 2023CRP/3019/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order allowing a defendants' application to receive a counterclaim for revenue rectification. It granted relief to the petitioner, allowing the respondents to approach the appropriate authority for rectification of revenue entries.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order allowing IA for counterclaim set aside; liberty granted to respondents to approach appropriate authority for rectification of revenue entries.

Smt.NerelliVijayalaxmi Vs Sri.Chinnala Raju… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

[3167 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.ABHISHEK REDDY

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3019 OF 2022

¶8

Petition under Nlicle 227 of Constitution df lndia aggrieved by the order dated 21.10.2022 in l.A. No. 373 of 2022 in O.S. No. 450 o'f 2018, on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Smt- Nerelli Vijayalaxmi, W/o. Kumarswamy, Aged. 44 Years, Occu Housewife, Fl/o.H.No.3-5711, Bandavutharapur-Village Wardhannapet-Mandal, Warangal District, State of Telangana

¶11

...PETITIONEFYPETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

Sri.Chinnala Raju, S/o.Uppalaiah, Age. 32 years, Occ. Agdculture,

¶14

Sri.Chinnala Uppalaiah, S/o.Ramaiah, Age. 58 years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶15

Smt.Chinnala Yellamma (lndhiramma), W/o.Upplaiah, Age. 54 years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶16

Sri.Chinnala Komuraiah, S/o.Uppalaiah, Age.44 years, Occ. Agrlculture,

¶17

Respondent No.1 to 4 are R/o.Bandavutharapur-Village Wardhannapet lVlandal, Warangal District, State of Telangana

¶18

Sri.Pidugu Komuraiah, S/o.Nallaiah, Age. 49 years, Occu. Agriculture

¶19

Sri.Pidugu llaiah, S/o.Mallaiah, Age. 43 years, Occ. Agriculture

¶20

Sri.Pidugu Yakaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age. 44 years, Occ. Agriculture

¶21

Sri.Pidugu Yellaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, Age. 64 years, Occ. Agriculture,

¶22

Respondent No.5 to 8 are F/o. Perumanallagudem-Village, lnavole-Mandal, Warangal District, State of Telangana.

¶23

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶24

lA NO:^'l OF 2022

¶25

Petition under Section^'l 51 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned order dt.2111012022 in l.A.No. 37312022 in O.S.No.450 of 2018 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Hanamkonda, pending disposal of present Civil Revision Petition in the interest ofjustice and equity and^pass such further order or orders in furtherance thereof.

¶26

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. Dr. VENKAT REODY DONTHI REDDY Counsel forthe Respondents: SRI V. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

¶27

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶28

( (

¶29

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REEDY

¶30

C.R.P.No.30L9 of 2022

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

This C.R.P. is filed seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 21.1O.2022 in I.A.No.37312022 in O.S.No.450 of 2018, on the Iile of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda, whereby the IA filed by the defendants (respondents herein) to receive their counterclaim was allowed.

¶33

karned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was filed by the plaintiff (petitioner herein) seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property whereas the LA. was filed. to receive the counter claim hled by the respondents seeking rectification of the revenue entries in respect of the very same property. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that instead of filing a separate suit for declaration of title, the respondents have Iiled the present I.A. and the same was erroneously allowed by the trial Court without any legal basis.

¶34

Learned counsel for the respondents has fairly stated that the relief claimed in the counter claim is for rectification of the revenue entries and therefore conceded for setting aside the impugned order with a liberty to the respondents to approach

¶35

the appropriate authority seeking rectification of the revenue entries.

¶36

In view of the above made submissions, the impugned order dated 21.1O.2022 in I.A.No.37312022 in O.S.No.450 of 2O 18, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Hanamkonda is set aside. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed granting liberty to the respondents to approach the appropriate authority seeking rectification of the revenue entries, rl,ho shall thereafter take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

¶37

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall also stard

¶38

closed. No costs.

¶39

¶40

SD/- P.PADMA,NABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRA,R //TRUE COPY// Ao

¶41

SECTION OFFICER

¶42

To,

¶43

The Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Hanamkonda.

¶44

One CC to Sri. Dr. Venkat Reddy Donthi Reddy, Advocate [OpUC]

¶45

One CC to Sri V. Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]

¶46

Two CD Copies

GBR "\

I I

HIGH COURT

DATED:2710112023

ORDER

CRP.No.3019 of 2022

( rtE STAI€
c)..
/, 7s
1 o r[B 2l'21]
a'
..
^"a.

¶54

ALLOWING THE CRP

¶55

WITHOUT COSTS

¶56

exf

Smt.NerelliVijayalaxmi v. Sri.Chinnala Raju and 7 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.NerelliVijayalaxmi v. Sri.Chinnala Raju and 7 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 G.M. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd. Adilabad Dist. Vs K.Upender Rao, Adilabad Dist. and 2 Others

Kanya Kumari Banavattula Vs a.P.Power Generation Corporation Ltd., ( Ap Genco )

I.Venkata Ramana Sai Vs Food Corporation of India

Mir Shabbir Ali Vs Sri Lokesh Kumar

K.Nagaraju Vs Sri.Lokesh Kumar D.S, I.A.S

M. Jagan Mohan Rao Vs Sri Anudeep Durishetty IAS