Partly allowed

Sh.Prakash LaI v. G.H.Shiva kumari

Telangana HC22 Nov 2024CRP/2657/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Civil Revision petition, the High Court directed the Junior Civil Judge to expeditiously decide O.S. No.320 of 2022 for specific performance. The Court ordered that this decision be reached without being influenced by observations from the impugned order dismissing the petitioners' earlier application for impleadment.

What did the court decide?

The specific relief granted was a direction for the Junior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District, to dispose of O.S. No.320 of 2022 expeditiously without being influenced by the observations i

Sh.Prakash LaI Vs G.H.Shiva kumari — Partition | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

126s7 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEIVBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2657 OF 2024

¶7

Petition under Section 115 of CPC against the Order dated 01-11-2023 made in l.A. No. 321 of 2022 in I.A. No. 793 of 2022 in O.S. No. 374 of 1994 on the fite of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, l\4edchal-{r,4alkajgiri District at Kushiaiguda.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 Sh. Prakash Lal, S/o. S.P. Heeralal, Aged 45 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 2-5-33, Mache Bollaram, Secunderabad

¶10

2 I,4. Rajesh Yadav, S/o. Rajender Yadav, Aged 43 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. PIot No. 17lG, Bhavana Enclave, New Bowenpally, Secunderabad

¶11

...Petitioners / Proposed Respondents No. 11 & 12 AND

¶12

G.H. Shiva Kumari, W/o. G.Harikrshari Aged about 56 years, Occ. House wife R/o H.No.700/4, Deepmala, 1st Floor, Parai Colony,4th Road, Dadar, Bombay

¶13

l/anisha Prithviraj, S/o Prithviraj Aged about 52 years, Occ. House Hold R/o 2-7-46, Macha Bollaram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

Annapurna, Wo Dasarathji, Aged 59 years, Occ. House Hold, R/o H.No. 142-36, Goshamahal.

¶15

Lakshmi Chandrashekar, Wo Gourishankar (Died per Lrs Petitioner No. S and 6)

¶16

Sharad, S/o Chankrashekar, Aged 35 years, Occ. Pvt. Service, Flat No. 202, Anmol Residency, Plot No.14, Owe Gaon Sector 34 b, Kharghar, Panvel, Raigarh, [t/aharastra

¶17

Sambhukari Occ. House Hold, Smitha, Rl/o Wo 14-134. Pavan Residency, Sambhukari Kantha Rao Santhosh. Aoed 33 Near Balaji^p;blic Sc6ool, vears.' Vishakapatnam (Urban) R.R.V.Puram, Vishakapatnam, A.P. 530029

¶18

J.Rambai, Wo Late Bansilaji (Died per Lrs Res No. 3 to 6)

¶19

B. Rajaram, S/o Late Bansilalji (Died per Lrs Res No. 3 to 6)

¶20

¶21

I J.R. Pushpa Raj, S/o Late J.B. Rajaram, Aged 39^years, Occ.^Pvt. Employee, R/o H.No. 5-5-212151301,3rd Floor, Sai Krupa Apts, Gandhi Bhavan,^Patel Nagar, Hyderabad-01

¶22

10 J.R. Rajeshwar @ K. Rajeshwar, D/o J.B. Jayaram Aged 36^years, Occ. Housewife, R/o H.No. 4-56, Kadthal, ft/lahbubnagar District509358

¶23

1. J.R. Rakesh Raj, S/o Late J.B. Rajaram, Aged 33^years, Occ.^StudentR/o H.No. 5-5-2121301, 3rd Floor, Sai Krupa Apts, Gandhi Bhavan, Patel^Nagar, Hyderabad-01

¶24

12 J.R. Praveen Raj, S/o Late J.B. Rajaram, Aged 32^years, Occ. Student,^Fi/o H.No. 5-5-21215/301, 3rd Floor, Sai Krupa Apts, Gandhi Bhavan, Patel Nagar, Hyderabad-0i

¶25

13 Suryanarayana, S/o Late Bansjlalji, Aged 43^years, Occ. Business, R/o 658/4, Sardar Bazar, IVlacha Bollararfi , R.R. District-50001 0

¶26

K. Rajeshwar Rao, S/o Late Bansilalji Aged 40^years, Occ. Business,^R/o Flat No.66, Einerald residency, A Block, NCL North Medchal Road, Kompally, Hyderabad

¶27

4E, Kashinath, S/o. Late Bansilalji, Aged 40^years, Occ. Business, R/o, H.No. 1112-11, Beside Kapil Chit Funds, Opp. Tirumala Apts, Janapriya Shelters, Near Bolaram Railway Station, Secunderabad

¶28

State Bank of Hyderabad, Rep. by its Manager, Secunderabad

¶29

...Respondents / Respondents i Defendants

¶30

lA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶31

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 l.A.No. 79312022 in O,S.No. 37411994 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri at Kusaiguda,^pending disposal of above Civil Revision Petition before this Hon'ble Court.

¶32

Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri B Sheshu Kumar

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent No 1 to 3 : Counsel for the Respondent No 5 & 6 : Counsel for the Respondent No 9 to 16:

¶34

Sri Bankatlal Mandhani

¶35

Sri Uday Vir Singh Laur

¶36

The Court made the following Order :

¶37

¶38

¶39

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

¶40

Civil Revision Petition No.2657 of 2024

¶41

ORDER:

¶42

This Civil Revision Pctition is fited, aggrieved by tl.re order, dated O1.11.2023 passed in I.A.No.32 I of 2022 in 1.A.No.793 of 2022 (old I.A.No.642 of 2O2) in O.S.No.374 ol 1994 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kushaiguda, Medchal-Malkaj giri District.

¶43

Heard Sri B. Seshu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Bankatlal Mandl-rani, lear-ned counsel for the respondents

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioners had contended that the petitioners are the agreement holders in respect of suit schedule properties. Respondent No.1 has filed a suit for partition^ylde O.S.No.374 of 1994 and in the said suit preferred by respondent No. 1, the petitioners have filed an application i.e., I.A.No.32l of 2O22 in I.A.No.793 of 2022 seeking to implead them as party respondents ln I.A.No.793 of 2022 and the trial Court was pieased to dismiss the said I.A. uide order and decree, dated 01.t1.2023.

AK5,J ctp 2657 2024

I I

Learned counsel for the^petitioners further^contended that the petitioners have^{hled O.S.No.32O of 2022fot} speci{ic^performance on^{the {i1e of the JuniorCivil Judge,} Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy District.^{Learnedcounsei further} contended that the observations^{made by the trial Court,} while dismissing the irnplead application^{i.e', I.A.No.321 of} 2O22 would come in the^way in^{the suit filed by the} petitioners for specific performance. Therefore,^{Iet the} learned Junior Civii Judge, Malkajgiri,^{Ranga Reddy} District, adjudicate O.S.No.32O ol^{2Q22, wittiout being} influenced by the observations^{made by the learned} Principal Senior Civil Judge,^{Kushaiguda,Medchal-} Malkajgiri District, while dismissing^theimplead application i.e., I.A.No.32 | of^{2022 in I'A.No.793 of 2022in} O.S.No.374 of 1994.

¶49

On tl-re other hand, learned counsel^forthe lespondents^{had contendedthat the petitionershave filed a} false suit against the respondents/^{plaintiffs and they have} no locus to get impleaded in the said^{suit for partition.} Hence, the triai Court has rightly dismissed^{the implead} application preferred by the petitioners.^{Therefore, ttrere}

¶50

\ I

¶51

AiI!,^J tt p^'2657 2O.).,1

¶52

'wffryr ' :-rt - , .ra,,'

¶53

-l

¶54

are no mcrits in thc^{Cil,ilRevi:ri,rn ljetitiorlaticl the sameis} liable to be dismissetl

¶55

This Corrrt, iraving^{r:onsirlerr:d.tl-it: r'!v:il sttbmissiol'ts} m:rde b1' botlr the Piiriit:s,^{is r.ri tltt, r'icr,'' th:rt tlte prt:sellt} Civil Revision Pelitiol-r^{t:lilt llt' rltsltt-'secl of, rlirecting thc} leau-ned Junior Clivii J^{r-rtlgc. I'lall<ajgir r.[?atrg:r Redd.r'} District to dec:icle O.S.No.320^{rf 2022, as expcditiouslyas} possiblc. u.itlrout^{lrtinllil)flll(:il'-ll{1 ll-' tltetrbsenrations} maclc by tht: lr:arti.:rl^{Pritli'iDlriScttir.'r Civii} 'Judgt' I(usiraiiiLrda, Meclr:1rai^{'liillr-air',iri 1)istrj':t inI A'l\lo 321 of} 2O22 in l.A.No.79fi^trf 20llo^{rrr n.S. No.J74 ot l994, datcd} 01,11.2023.

¶56

With the ab,t'.'r' sr.itd^{t,irs.:I'vatiorls/directior-rs' this} Civil Revision Petiliori^{.is tlir-sposr:citli.No r:osts}

¶57

As a sequel, nt:scellaneorLS^{arl)plications pending il} any, shzrll starld^closcd

¶58

Sd/. A.V.S, PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY'

SECTION OFFTCER

To,

'1 . The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda

¶64

One CC to Sri B Sheshu Kumar, Advocate [OpUC]

¶65

¶66

One CC to Sri Bankatlal [/andhani, Advocate [OpUC]

¶67

One CC to Sri Uday Vir Singh Laur, Advocate [OpUC]

¶68

Two CD Copies

VA KT,

}!.--

HIGH COURT DATED:2211112024

¶73

ORDER

¶74

CRP.No.2657 of 2024

¶75

.r.t Itt slAr e
3 Jt 0t[ Zuzl
c,
I
Tr P'

¶76

DISPOSING OF THE CRP
@\q--
6,*

Sh.Prakash LaI v. G.H.Shiva kumari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh.Prakash LaI v. G.H.Shiva kumari

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

S Chandra Gopal Vs Sri Aravind Kumar IAS and another

Pagidipalli Nageshwara Rao Vs Smt. Rema Rajeshwari

Vidyamsetti Subba Rao Vs Smt. Madireddy Lakshmi

Tummala Manjula, Vs K.Lakshmi Devi

Pettam Shanker Vs Sri N. Balram, I.R.S.

M/s. Sri. Krishna Sweets (P) Ltd. Vs M/s. R.S. Brothers India (P) Ltd.