Allowed

Sri.Gaddam Laxmaiah Yadav v. Sri.B.Narsing Rao

Telangana HC6 Dec 2024CRP/2108/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging a trial court order rejecting an application for deposit of rental arrears. The revision bench quashed the order, noting factual inconsistencies and the trial court's failure to consider a relevant prior docket order regarding a partition suit.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.04.2024 set aside; trial court directed to rehear parties and pass fresh order.

Sri.Gaddam Laxmaiah Yadav Vs Sri.B.Narsing Rao — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³⁴⁰¹ l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY .THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER

¶4

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2108 OF 2024

¶8

Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the Order dated 16.04.2024 passed in t.A.No. 710 of 2023 in O.S.No. 59 of 2020 oh the file of the Court of the Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri Gaddam Laxmaiah Yadav, (Died LRs petitioners No.2 to 9)

¶11

G.Pentamma, Wo Late Gaddam Laxmaiah yadav, Aged g0 years, Occ Housewife.

¶12

G-Sharada, Wo Late G.Ayelesh^yadav, Aged 58 years, Occ Household

¶13

G.Arvind Yadav, S/o Late G.Ayelesh^yadav, Aged 3g years, Occ Business,

¶14

Sri Gaddam Venkatesh Yadav, S/o Late G.Laxmaiah, Aged 55 years. Occ Agriculture, ecunderabad

¶15

Sri Gaddam Ramesh Yadav, S/o Late G.Laxmaiah, Aged 52 years, Occ Agriculture,

¶16

Sri Gaddam Srihari Yadav, S/o Late G.Laxmaiah, Aged 47 years, Occ Agriculture

¶17

(All^'1 to 6 R/o SCB No.6-55-093, Survey No.1 to 4, GLy Nagar, Seetharampur Village, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad Cantonm6nt, Secunderabad

¶18

Smt. G ,Jaya Lakshmi Yadav, D/o Late G.Laxmaiah, W/o G.Rameshyadav, lged^{56 yearq Occ: llousewife, R/o Plot No.s, Ram Reddy Colony,} Seetharampur, Bowenpally, Secunderabad.

¶19

Smt. Korivi Laxmi, Wo Sri Korivi Laxman Yadav, Aged 44 years, Occ Housewife, R/o H.No. 16-10-163, First Floor, Municipa[ Colonyj Matakpet, Hyderabad

¶20

...Petitioners

¶21

AND

¶22

'1 . Sri.B.Narsing Rao, S/o Late Kotaiah Aged 66 years, Occ Business,

¶23

Smt.B.Vijayalaxmi, Wo B.Narsing Rao, Aged 64 years, Occ Business,

¶24

Sri.B.Abhishek, S/o B.Narsing Rao, Aged 39 years, Occ Business

¶25

¶26

--=-:7

¶27

Smt.B.Neeraja, Wo B.Abhishek, Aged 35 years, Occ Housewife

¶28

Smt.P.Priyanka, Wo P.Aswin Chakravarthy Aged 34 years, Occ Housewife

¶29

Sri.P.Ashwin Chakravarthy, S/o Sri.P.Jagan Mohan Aged 48 years, Occ Business

¶30

(All 1 to 6 R/o H No.6-6-42911, Sakam Nilayam, Gandhinagar, Secunderabad500 080)

¶31

Nexgen Educational Trust (runs schools under brand name of Sri Chaitanya School), a registered Trust bearing No.23"l/2009, RR District, having its office at Plot No.BO, Shri Sai Plaza, Ayyappa Society, Madhapur, Hyderabad- 500 081, rep. by its Authorized signatory, Mr.G.Sreenivasa Rao, S/o G.Kondaiah, Aged 5'l years, R/o H.No.34-63/8, 2nd Floor, Arvind Nagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad -500 013

¶32

8, Gaddam Papaiah Yadav, S/o Lae Gaddam Laxmaiah Yadav, Aged 63^years, Occ Business, R/o Plot No.34, Sy.Nos.1 to 4, GL Yadav Nagar, Seetharampur, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad Cantonment-500 01't

¶33

... Respondents

¶34

lA NO:^'l OF 2024

¶35

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 herein to deposit the arrears of rents to the tune of Rs1 ,44,90,376=86 (Rupees One Crore, Forty Four Lakhs, Ninety Thousand, Three Hundred Seventy Six and paisa Eighty Six only) for the^period April 2020 to January 2O24, to the credit of suit in O.S No.59 of 2020^pending on the file of Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Secunderabad pending disposal of the main CRP with observation that Respondent No.8 herein shall not withdraw his alleged 1/8th share pending disposal of the^partition suit,

¶36

Counsel for Petitioners : Sri Palanati Lakshman

¶37

Gounsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 : Ms. G. Malathi

¶38

Counsel for Respondent No. 8 : Sri P. Raj Kiran

¶39

Counsel for Respondent No.7 : None appeared

¶40

The Court made the following: OROER

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL

¶42

CTVIL REVISION PETITI ON No.21O8 of 2024

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

Sri P. Lakshman, learned counsel for the petitioners ald Ms. G. Malathi, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

¶45

With the consent finallv heard

¶46

The challenge mounted in this petition is to the order dated 16.04.2024 in LA.No.71O of 2023 in O.S.No.59 of 2O2O whereby application liled by the petitioners/plaintiffs under Order XV_A of C.P.C. (State amendment) is rejected by the trial Court.

¶47

Criticizing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioners/ plaintiffs submits that a plain reading of two paragraphs of page No.ll shows that jural relationship of petitioners/plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants was established. Thereafter, the trial court proceeded to record in first paragraph of last page of the impugned order that "neither respondent No.8 is party in said I.A. nor in present petition". In last paragraph, the trial Court considered the written statement Iiled by respo.dent No.S. Thus, findings of trial Court are mutually inconsistent and it has not considered the docket order passed by XXVII Additiona.l Chief Judge, City Civil Court, --

vtJ

Secunderabad on 09.O2.2024 in I.A.No.512 of 2021^{in O.S.No.39} of 2021. In this view of the matter, the impugned^{order may be} set aside and the trial Court may be directed to^{rehear the parties} and pass a fresh order.

¶52

karned counsel for respondent Nos.l to 6 supported^the impug-ned order.

¶53

I have heard the parties at length

¶54

A plain reading of the impugned order shows that^the argument of learned counsel for the^{petitioners/plaintiffshas} substance. In the first paragraph of the^{last page of the impugned} order, the trial Court recorded that "neither respondent^{No.8 is} party in said I.A. nor in present petition". Thus, the said finding is factually incorrect because respondent No.8 is not only^{a party,} he also filed his written statement in the O.S. A careful^reading of the impugned order shows that there is no consideration^and discussion about the docket order dated 09 .O2.2O24^passed in I.A.No.512 of 2021 in O.S.No.39 of 2021, where^partiesare Iitigating on the aspect of partition. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, wherein a relevant document i.e. docket order dated O9.O2.2024 passed in I.A.No.512 of 2021 in O.S.No.39 of 2O21 has escaped notice cannot sustain judicial scrutiny.

--:-7:a

/:'

Resultantly, the impugned order dated 16.O4.2024 is set

¶59

aside. The trial Court is directed to rehear the parties on pending application and pass a fresh order in accordarce with law.

¶60

. With aforesaid and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶61

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending il any, stand

¶62

closed.

¶63

Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SE ON OFFICER

To,

The Xll^{Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' at.Secunderabad} i o;;tC i;-s,i^{patinatiLarinmanAdyggglg[oPUC]} 3. 5;; cc i;^{M. c trlatrtni, Advocatetgl-L/-c.1.} ; 5;; cc i"^{sr.i p Raj Kiran,Advocate[oPUc]}

¶68

Two^{CD CoPies}

Nib/gh Yy

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611212024

ORDER

CRP.No.2108 of 2024

,F
:.
t
cJo [ 1 i: .t)
\ t -"1
r,7t +
l( O51:-;-a . r'i r:1:'

¶75

DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

¶76

+,4?4 mr6(tr

Sri.Gaddam Laxmaiah Yadav v. Sri.B.Narsing Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Gaddam Laxmaiah Yadav v. Sri.B.Narsing Rao

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

Telangana Olympic Association Vs Telangana Boxing Federation

Mr.Ashok Doshi Vs Dr.Manohar Patalay

Mohd. Rafi Vs Mir Mohd. Rasheed Ali Khan

Mrs. Nikitha Rani Jaiswal, Vs Sachin Kumar Jaiswal

K. Vijay Kumar Reddy Vs Smt. Shyamala Anna Mary Rani

Smt.Dr.Y.Gayathri Vs Ravi Jammu