Disposed

The Municipality v. Bonapally Venkata Badari Narayana Rao

Telangana HC25 Jan 2024CRP/534/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Defendant municipality challenged dismissal of its petition to set aside ex parte temporary injunction orders granted in the plaintiff's injunction suit over Huzurnagar land. The High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's order and directed expeditious disposal of the main suit.

What did the court decide?

CRP disposed without costs; trial court directed to dispose of O.S.No.245 of 2020 at the earliest giving due opportunity to both parties.

The Municipality Vs Bonapally Venkata Badari Narayana Rao — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

clvtl- REVISION PETITION NO: 534 OF 2021

¶6

Petition under Articre 227 0f the constitution of rndia, aggrieved bv the order Dated22-02-2021 in rA.3,0r202o i"-o.i.-ii;.' 24s ot zo2o, on the fire of Honourable Junior Civil Judge at Hrr*n"g".^{- ""}

¶7

Between:

¶8

The Municipality, Huzurnagar Rep. by its Commissioner

¶9

AND

¶10

..,..PETITIONER

¶11

f,:il?,.flL,,ll5fljt|Affi:HJayana^{Rao,Rep by its GenerarpowerorAnorney}

¶12

.....RESPONDENT

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶14

Petition under Section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support ot tne petition iG riigi-,,'iir.t ,ry be preased to qrant the stav-of file of a, learned Junior Civil further proceedings .tuUge, in r.A Huzurnagai--No. aso oi z02o in 0:6 N;:;45 ";;;r:d;,

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner: SRl. M RAM MOHAN REDDY (SC FOR MUNtcTPAL|TtES TG)

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI J ASHVINI KUMAR

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE K.SUJANA CTVIL REVISIoN PETITI ON l{o. 534 0F 20.2t

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The present Civil Revision petition is hled by the defendant against the order d,ated 22.o2.2o21 in I.A.No. 4g5 of 2O2O in I.A.No. 38O of 2O2O in O.S.No. 245 of 2O2O on the file of learned Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, wherein the I.A. filed to set aside the ex parte orders dated 24.O9.2O2O in I.A. No. 38O of 2020, was dismissed.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties r.r.ill be referred as per their array before the trial Court.

¶22

The brief facts of the case ale that the plaintiffl respondent herein filed the suit against the revision petitioner/defendant for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Acre l.2O guntas i.e., 7260 square yards in Survey Nos.2OZ /A2, 2OB / AA, 2 1 I / I situated at Municipal limits of Huzurnagar. The plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiff, after retirenrent, he w.as residing at Hyderabad, due to which, he appointed one Beeravolu Somi Reddy as his General power o[ Attorney vide Regisrered G.p.A. No. 4 of 20 18 dated 03.O2.2OIa to manage rhe suit schedule property. While so, in the year 2O19, the defendant,.triong with their henchmen,

¶23

¶24

sKs./ CRP No. 534^{o[ 202t}

¶25

tried to interfere^{$'ith the possessionof the ptaintiff over the} suit schedule^{property. Aggrievedby the same,the plaintiff} frled a suit. Along^{with the suit,he also hled I A No 3SO of} 2O2O seeking ad^{interim injunctionpending the suit 'As} there was no appearance^{on the part of the defendant' the} trial Court^{passed ex parteorders oo 24 -O9 '2020granting} temporary injunction^{in respec. of suit schedule property'} Aggrieved therebv,^{the defendant hled I ANo 485 of 2O2O} under Order lX^{Rule 7read with Sectioni51 of Civil} Procedure Code^{seekingto scl aside the ex parte (lrders} d,ated.24.O9.202O^{contending interalia that $"hen I'A No 380} of 2O2O was adjourned^{to 24 09.2O2O,b,v confusiorr' he (In} charge Commissioner^{of HuzurnagarI'lun icipatiry*)appeared} before another Courl^{i.e-, the learnedScniorCivil'Judge'} Huzurnagar instead^{of the lcarned JuniorCivil} 'Iudge' Huzurnagar. The^{said non-appearanccof defendantis} neither willful^{nor wanton bul for the reasons stated above'}

¶26

By the impugned^{order dated 22-02'2021,the trial} Court dismissed^{the saidI A' Aggrieved by the same' the} present Civil Revision^Petition.

¶27

¶28

s(s../ CRP lio. 534 of2021

¶29

Heard Sri.M.Ram Mohan Reddy,^{learned Standing} Counsel for revision petitioner and Sri.J.Ashwini^Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶30

l,earned Standing Counsel for the revision petitioner/ de fendant contended that the said nonappearance of defendant oo 24.O9.2O2O is neither willful nor wanton, as such, without the fact that by mistake the revision peti[ioner misrepresented before another Court, the trial Court erroneously dismissed the I.A. No. 485 of 2O2O. Hence, the learned Standing Counsel prayed to allow the revision petition setting aside the impugned orders dated 22.O2.202r.

¶31

On the othcr hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintifl conte nded that in view of the ex parte orders dated 24.O9.2O2O in I.A.No.38O of 2O2O, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the said I.A. Hence,^prayed to dismiss the revision petition.

¶32

8 In view of the rival submissions, this Court has perused the record and it is pertinent to note that vide orders dated 24.O9.2O2O in I.A.No.38O of 2O2O, the trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of plaintiff ti disposal of the main suit. The trial Court observed that the

¶33

¶34

( Rlr \o :.j1 ol :tDl

¶35

petition has to be filed at or before hearing date i.e., 24.09.2O2O, as such, provision of Order IX Rule 7 ol CpC is not maintainable as there is orders passed by the trial Court granting temporary injunction in favour of respondent/ plaintiff in I.A.No. 3gO of 2O2O. Considering the iacts an<i circumstance of the case, this Court rs of the considered opinion that in vieu, of the orders passed in I.A.No. 380 ot 2O2O, the trial Court has righth. drsmissed I.A.No.485 of 2O2O, which is in proper perspective . Hence, I do not hncl any irregularity or infirmitv ,,iarranting interference of this Court. Horvever, considering the nature o[ dispute, this Court deems it fit to direcr the rrial Court to dispose of the suit itself expeditiously.

¶36

Accordingly, the Civit Revision perition is clispr_rsed of directing the trial Court to dispose of the mair-r suit i.e., O.S.No. 245 of 2O2O at the earliest alter giving due opportunity to both the parties. There shall bc no order as to costs.

¶37

Miscellaneous petirions, if an1- pending, shall stand

¶38

closed.

¶39

Sd/- N. CHANORA^{SEKHAR RAO} ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

//TRUE^COPY//

SECTION^OFFICER

To,

1- The iunior Civil^{Judgeat Huzurnagar Nalgonda} -District' i. o;; cc'to^{dcr. nt-nxr,,rr,lonerl nEooY (5c FCR MUNICIPALIrIES} TG) Advocate tOPUCI s oi6'ct t" Sn[.j^{nsHvrrut KUMAR, Advocate[oPUC]} 4. Two CD CoPies Wv

¶44

HIGH COURT

¶45

DATED: 2510112024

¶46

ORDER CRP.No.534 ol 2O2'l

¶47

e 1rlE, S14 ,6
o
)
(-
z
3 ) 06 APfl 202{ a
.1=
t
O5 ;,,AT CB{:-O

¶48

DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS

¶49

G ,6a
Xv"

The Municipality v. Bonapally Venkata Badari Narayana Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Municipality v. Bonapally Venkata Badari Narayana 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

Smt. P. Sita Maha Lakshmi Vs E.V Manohar Rao

NavatheHemalatha Vs K.Rukmini and 6others

Peddapyata Thirupathaiah Vs Moutam Ravi

Jaasthi Gayathri Devi and another Vs Smt. Jaasthi Sravani Madhavi and 8 Others

Sri Akula Anantha Swamy Vs Sri Amit Kumar

Badavath Ramu Naik and another Vs Guguloth Ramulu