Remanded

Abdul Qadeer v. Asma Begum

Telangana HC1 Feb 2024CRP/1031/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a Civil Revision petition alleging the trial court erred in granting an ex parte injunction without considering a prior subsisting status quo order. It directed the trial court to re-hear the interlocutory application giving both parties an opportunity.

What did the court decide?

The VIII Junior Civil Judge directed to dispose of I.A. No. 722 of 2022 in O.S. No. 3462 of 2022 afresh after hearing both parties within 60 days.

Abdul Qadeer Vs Asma Begum — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

:PRESENT:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1031 0F 2023

¶6

Petition under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, Aggrieved by the Order daled 22-08-2022 Passed in lA.No. 722 of 2022 in O.S.No. 3452 of 2022 on the file of the Court of the Vlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Abdul Qadeer, S/o Mohd Yousuf Ali, aged about 49 years, Occ: Business,^.t R/o.H.No.19-2-1133/4, Misri Gunj, Katapalhar, Bahadurfura, Hyderabad.

¶9

2 Mohd Abdulah, S/o Mohd Abdut Qadeer, aged about 29 years, Occ: qusiness, R/o.H.No.19-2-1l33i4, Misri Gunj,- Kalapathar, B'ahadurpura, Hyderabad.

¶10

Petitioners

¶11

AND

¶12

t Alr.q Qeguln, w19 Mohammed Ayaz, aged about42 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No. 19-2-9261 NQl2,Misrigunj, Kahatipura, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 Mohammed AyaZ S/o Shabbir Ahmed, aged about 4g years, Occ; Business, R/o .H.No. 1 9-2-926lA"/Q/2,Misrigunj, Kamatipura, Hydeiabad'

¶14

...Respondent

¶15

IA NO: 3 OF 2023

¶16

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 to grant stay of all further proceedings in o.s.No. 3462 of 2022 on the file of the VIll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of Civil Revision Petition No. 1031 ot 2023, on the file of the High Court.

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2023

¶18

Petition under Seclion 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to

I .t. I ,

suspend the execution and operation^{of order in l.A No.722of 2022 in O.S No. 3462} ot 2022 dated 22-8-2022^{passed by the Vlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court} Hyderabad^pending disposal of Civil^{Revision Petition and pass, Pendingdisposal of} CRP 1031 ot 2o23. Counsel for Petitioners : Sri K.^{Harish Kumar} Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri.^{Venkateswarlu Sanisetty} The Court made the following: ORDER

¶23

w. $ t

¶24

¶25

THE HON'BLE SMT^{JUSTICE K.SUJANA} CTVIL REVISION PEIITION^{No. 1031 0F 2023}

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

The present Civil^{RevisionPetition isfiled by} defendants against the^{order dated 22.08'2O22in I'A'No'} 722 of 2022 in O.S.No.^{3462of 2022 on the file of learned} Junior Civil Judge,^{City Civil Court at Hyderabad(for short} 'the trial Court'), wherein,^{ex parte ad-interiminjunction} was granted till next^{date of hearing.}

¶28

For the sake of^{convenience,hereinafter,the parties} will be referred to as arrayed^{beforethe trial Court'}

¶29

The facts of the case^{are that the defendants/ revision} petitioners herein filed^{the suitagainstthe} respondents / plaintifls^{for perpetualinjunction restraining} the defendants and their^{men from interferingwith his} peacelul possession and^{enjoyment over the suit schedule} property i.e.,^{premises bearing No'19-4-279 ll'} admeasuring 440^{square yards and premisesbearing No'} lg-4-27g 12, admeasuring^{365 square yards intotal} admeasuring 805^{squareyards, LateefFunction Palace (New} R.A. Palace), situated^{at Nawabsahab Kunta, Hyderabad'} The plaintiffs' claims to^{be the absolute joint owners and} possessors of the suit^{schedule property havingacquired}

¶30

¶31

s(s.-/ CRP No. l03 t of2023

¶32

the same vide registered sale deed document bearing Nos. 2),47 and 2148 of 2Ot4 dared 26.O2.2Ot4. With an evil desire, the defendants along with anti_social elements trying to interfere with the possession ol the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the praintiffs rrled a suit. Along with the suit, they also llled I.A.No. 722 of 2022 under Orcler XXXIX Rules I and 2 read with Section 15 I of Civil Procedure Code, seeking ad_interim injunction against the defendants pending disposal of the suit..

¶33

By the impugned order dated 22.Og.2O22, the trial Court passed ex porte orders granting ad_inter injunction in respect of suit schedule property rill next date of hearing. Aggrieved by the same, defendants liled the present revision nr-f itinn

¶34

Heard Sri.^p. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ defendants as well as Sri. Venkateswarlu Sanisetty, learned counsel for the respondents/ plaintiffs. perused the material available on record.

¶35

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants contended that the revision

¶36

.r:r'::t

¶37

.sKs-/ CRP No. l0Jl of2023

¶38

petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.^{3235 of 2022 aTong witl:,} I.A.No. 7O4 of 2022^{before the learnedXX JuniorCivil} Judge, City Civil Court,^{Hyderabad,against the respondents} herein for temporary^{injunction, wherein, the trial Court} granted status-quo order and^{without disclosingthe same'} Iater, respondents^{herein filed a suit in O'S'No' 3462 of} 2022 along with I.A.No.^{722 of 2022 and obtainedex parte} ad-interim injunction^{without giving noticeto the revision} petitioners herein. Therefore,^{learned counselsubmits that} since status-quo orders^{grantedearlier are subsistinS,the} revision petition may^{be allowed.}

¶39

On the other hand,^{learned counsel forthe} respondents contended^{that the present revisionpetition is} not maintainable^{and as the suit hled by the respondents} vide O.S.No. 3462 of^{2022 is coming for hearing, he prayed} to dismiss the revision Petition.

¶40

)

¶41

In view of the above rival^{contentions of both the} counsel and^{perusalof the materialevidenceavailableon} record, it is pertinent to^{note that as the impugned order} dated 22.08.2022^{was passed by the trial Courtwithout} appreciating the fact^{that statzs-quoorders passed in}

¶42

¶43

s(s"r CRP No. l03l of202J

¶44

I.A.l.{o. 704 of 202.2 in O.S.No. 3235 of 2O22 by the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are still subsisting prior to the frting of suit in O.S.No. 3462 of 2022 along with I.A.No. 222 of 2022 before the learned VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, this Court feels that ends of justice would meet if a direction is given to the learncd VIII Junior Civil Judge, to dispose of the I.A.No. 722 of 2022 in O.S.No. 3462 of 2022 atresh after hearing both the parties and considering the counter liled by the revision petitioners

¶45

Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is disposed of directing the learned VIII Junior Civil Juclge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad to dispose of I.A. No. 722 of 2022 in O,S.No. 2,4A) ^f 1vz.z_^on1lr .-.:.L:-- /lttLttit i.) oays lrom the , , ciate of receipt of a copy of this Order, after giving due opportunity to both the parties,. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶46

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand

¶47

closed.

¶48

To,

¶49

.;di:.ri: Sd/. C. PRAVEEN KUMAR.ii, :I}.,.J: ASSISTANT RE ISTRAR^T ttI C 'i,^u SECTION OFFICER jriI ,# t_,

¶50

//TRUE COPY//

¶51

1 . The Vlll Junior Civit Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad

¶52

One CC to Sri. K. Harish Kumar, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Venkateswarlu Saniselty, Advocate [OpUC]

¶53

Two CD Copies

PSR

!:{-

ri' j. ' '{

r.v;i.-...i- 1:
' l-l , ai:- .'i
sf:ift"
..4+,ifi.T,

HIGH COURT

;{

DATED:01 10212024

ORDER

GRP.No.1031 of 2023

:1,
lf,i
.$
t##i
'+,.tl!i,: &
1t:.i t1
i
I
i-t' .... ji
':*tis:9r-: .fT
,ld
1q#i
'i.,J,i t
i
I
i i
i
t
,t;
1 HE STA 16' t,
a f-
{
oJq
U 2 3 tilAR 2tl'4 oz
5
:
J
9j,
a l)€sparct{( ,,t,' t
ti' }.
t
,,.',.
I T
I
.!l.'
+.

¶64

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITI{OUT COSTS.

¶65

6^cdj*A *oo

Abdul Qadeer v. Asma Begum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Qadeer v. Asma Begum

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

Smt Yellamma , Besta Yellamma Vs Sri Abdulla Bin Abdur Raheem

Rangaraju Chinnu Bai Vs The Additional Collector (Revenue)

Y.Lalitha Vs K.Mohan

Gaddam Satyanarayan Reddy, Vs Devasani Shekaraiah

Qazi Nawabuddin Vs The District Collector

M/s. Yamini Estates Vs M/s. Krd Exports Pvt. Ltd.