Dismissed

Gujjula Surender Reddy v. Vejju Bhaskara Laxmi Narayana Rao Naidu

Telangana HC14 Nov 2024CRP/3100/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant sought rejection of a plaint alleging the plaintiff lacked possession of the suit land; the trial court had refused since correctness of allegations is beyond Order VII Rule 11(a) purview at that stage. The revisional court upheld the dismissal, holding an application filed after commencement of trial cannot be so entertained.

What did the court decide?

CRP dismissed; petitioner left free to agitate grounds including cause of action in pending suit; no costs.

Gujjula Surender Reddy Vs Vejju Bhaskara Laxmi Narayana… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

]N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} . ATHYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{C.V. BHASKARREDDY}

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3100^{OF 2024}

¶6

Petition under Article 227^{of the constitutionof lndia aggrievedby the order} dated 13-02-2024 made in l.A.^{No. 141 of 2023 in O.S. No. 8 of 2018 on the file of} the Court ofthe Additional Diskict^{Judge, Godavarikhani, PeddapalliDistrict.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

Gujjula Surender Reddy, S/o.^{VenkataRaji Reddy,} |ge^{SO years,. Occ'} Budiness, R/o. H.No.'19-1-11512,^{MarkendeyaColony, Godavarikhani,} Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli^Diskict

¶9

...Petitioner / Petitioner / Defendant^{No. 2} AND

¶10

Vejju Bhaskara Laxmi Narayana^{Rao Naidu,S/o. VeerabhadraRao, Age^79} ve5rs. Occ. Retd. SCCL^{Eniployee, R/o. Qr. No.T2-1033,Ganeshnagar,B-} incline Colony, Godavarikhahi,^{Ramagundam Mandal, Peddapalli District}

¶11

...Respondent No.¹ / Respondent^{No. 1 / Plaintiff}

¶12

Nanaparaiu Padmavathi, Wo.^{LateKrishnamRaju, Age73 years, Occ' Retd.} Teacher, Rlo. Flat No. 203/206,^{PanchvatiApartment, Behind B.B.R. Hospital,} Vinayak6 Nagar, Opp. Hotel Samrat^{Lane'Balanagar,Hyderabad}

¶13

...Respondent No. 2 / Respondent^{No.2 / DefendantNo''l}

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

Petition under Section¹⁰ &^{'151 CPC praying that in the circumstances} stated in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition, the HighCourt may be} pleased to grant stay of all further^{pioceedingsin} o.s.^{No. B/2018 on the file of the} court of Additional District^{Judge,Godavarikhani,pending disposal of civil} Revision Petition.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner^:

¶17

Sri B Gopala Krishna

¶18

Counsel for the ResPondents^:

¶19

The Court made the following^{Order :}

I I

I )

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{C. V. BHASKAR REDDY}

¶24

c. R.P.No.31OO of 2o24

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Aggrieved by the order, dated^{13.02.2024 passedin} I.A.No.141 of |2023 in O.S.No.8 of^{2018 by the Additional District} Judge at God.av:rrikhani, the^{presentCivil RevisionPetition is} filed by the petitioner/defendant^No.2.

¶27

The petitioner/ defendant^{No.2 frled I.A.No. 141 ol 2023 in} O.S.No.S of 2018 under^{Order MI Rule11 (a) of CPC seeking} rejection of plaint stating that the^{respondent/plaintiff is never in} possession o1' the land in Sy.No.728/B;^{the said I.A was} dismissed by the trial Court on^{13.02.2024stating that the} correctness or otherwise of the^{allegations constitutingthe cause} of action is beyond the^{purview of Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CPC} and the contenl-ions raised by the^{petitioner/defendantNo.2,} cannot be considered in the^{absenceof full-fledged trial.}

¶28

The trial Court while dismissing the^{I.A {iled by the} petitioner/ defenclant No.2 has taken^{into considerationof the law} laid down by this Court reported^{in 2008 (6) ALT 668 between} M.A.E.Kumar Varma v. Ramoji Rao & others^{and alsothe} judgment of the' Gujarat High Court in Vimalaben Ramniklal

¶29

¶30

¶31

Mehta v. Patel Valji Deviji Vekriya, dated 76.11.2022 for rejection of the I.A filed under Order VII Rule 11 (a) of CpC.

¶32

Since the petitioner/defendant No.2 has Iiled the Interlocutory Application after commencement of the trial, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the Interlocutory Application duly taking into consideration of the law laid down by this Court and also Gujarat High Court. There is nothing to take a different view. The impugned order does not suffer from legal inhrmities warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶33

Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving open to the petitioner/defendant No.2 to agitate all his grounds including the cause of action in the pending suit. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel thereto, miscellaleous petitions, if any, pending

shall stand closed.

I I

,/TRUE^COPY//

Sd,- P.^PADMANA BHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶39

¶40