Quashed

Mr.Mohammad Abdul Naseeb Khan v. Smt.Fareena Begum

Telangana HC1 Sept 2025CRP/2440/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Supreme Judicial Bench allowed a civil revision petition. The court held that an impugned order granting temporary injunction was void for failure to record reasons and consider objections, violating natural justice principles. It also addressed substantive issues regarding permissible pleadings in election petitions.

What did the court decide?

Injunction order in Civil Revision Petition No. 2440 of 2025 is quashed for failure to record reasons and address objections.

Mr.Mohammad Abdul Naseeb Khan Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

li iili 1 I lr ti il ii i: i: l! t, ir i

¶2

t3252)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

IVIONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶7

CIVIL REVISION N NO: 2440 OF 2025

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, against the Order dated 0910612025 in 1.A.No.239 of 2025 in l.A.No.102 of 2025 in O.S.No.19 of 2025 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, at Sanga Reddy.

¶9

Between:

¶10

Mr.lVloh4mmad Abdul Naseeb Khan, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Raqeeb Khan, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.:11-1-120411/3, Habeeb Nagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad.

¶11

Amtul Ayesha, Wo. tMohd. Abdul Naseeb Khan, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Household. R/o. H.No.11-1-12041113, Habeeb Nagar, I\4allepally, Hyderabad.

¶12

Shahanmaj Khan Alias Shahnaz Khanam, W/o. tM.A.Haseeb Khan, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.11-1-12041113, Habeeb Nagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad.

¶13

M.A.Muqhader Khan, S/o. Late M.A.Haseeb Khan, Aged about 32 years, Occ: B.usiness, R/o. H.No.11-1-120411/3, Habeeb Nagar, t\4allepally, Hyderabad.

¶14

Mohammed Abdul Rauf Khan, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Raqeeb Khan, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.11-1-120411/3, Habeeb Nagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad.

¶15

Mohammed Abdul Moyeed Khan, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Raqeeb Khan, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11-1-12041113, Habeeb Nagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad.

¶16

...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No.2 to 7/DEFENDANTS NO.2 TO 7.

¶17

AND

¶18

Smt. Fareena Begum, Wo. Late Abdul Rahim, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1-4-561N1, Hussaini Mohalla, Narayankhed Town and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

¶19

RESPONDENT No.1 /PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

¶20

Rahima Begum alias Rahematunnisa Begum, Aged about 75 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1-4-56, Hussaini l/ahalla, Narayankhed Town and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District.

¶21

RESPONDENT No.2/ RESPONDENT No.1/DEFENDANT No.1

¶22

-- lF

¶23

The Municipal Commissioner Narayankhed, N arayankhed Municipality, at Narayankhed Town and Mandal, Sanga Reddy D istrict.

¶24

(R2 and R3 are not necessary party)

¶25

RESPONDENT No.3/ RESPONDENT No.8/DEFENDANT No.8

¶26

l.A.NO: 1 oF 2025

¶27

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.19 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Sanga Reddy, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition.

¶28

Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Botla Venkateswara Rao

¶29

Counsel for the Respondent No.1:Sri. L Venkateshwar Rao

¶30

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶31

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTTCE SUREPALLI NANDA

¶32

ORDER

¶33

Heard sri Bofla venkteshawara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and sri L.venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶34

Aggrieved by the order, dated 09.06.2025 passed in r.A.No.239 of zo2s in r.A.No.Loz ot 2o2s in o.s.No.l9 of 2025 on the file of r Additional District Judge, sangareddy District at sangareddy, the present civil Revision petition is filed.

¶35

¶36

extracted hereunder:-

¶37

B. As seen from the record, the main IA.No.102 of 2025 is coming up for enquiry, which is not at commenced. The main suit is filed for comprehensive reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The

¶38

E:.

¶39

¶40

relief in I.A.No.102^{of 2025 is for the temporary injunction} restraining the^{Respondents/Defendantsfrom raising} further construction^{in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule} property. This court has carefully^{perusedthe affidavit,} counter affidavit^{filed by the Respondentsand also the} the piopot"O additional^{affidavit filed by} 'petitioner/Plaintiff: In view of facts alrd circumstances of the case^{and takinginto considerationthe nature of relief} iougnt by^{the Petitioner/Plaintiff in I.A.No.102 of 2025,} this court^{holds that an opportunityhas to be givento the} petitioner/Plaintiff to put forth her case.^{No prejudice} would be caused^{to the Respondentsand they will be given} an opportunity^{to submitreply to the additionalaffidavit, if} inv.'Under^{these circumstances,this court holds that the} f.[ition"r/plaintiff^{is entitled to the relief as prayed for'} Accordingly,^{the point in questionis answered'}

¶41

g. IN^'THE RESULT, This petition is^{allowed.The parties} shall bear^{their own costs.}

¶42

DISCUSSION^{AND CONCLUSION:-}

¶43

I District at Add tional DistricL Judqe. Sanq reddv sanoareddv^{are the petitioners in the Dresent c.R.P.}

¶44

respondent^{No.1 in the Dresent cRP seekino Drayer as}

¶45

under:-

¶46

"suit for declaration of^{title, to declarethe plaintiff is} absolute owner of^{suit schedule properties, and also} recoveryofpossessioninrespectofsuit.scheduleproperty and mandatory^{Injunction directing the defendants to} removetheillegal-andunauthorizedconstructioninitem no. 1 or tne scn"edule^{of the property at their own cost and} also seeking^{relief to declare the documentsi.e gift}

¶47

¶48

settlement deed vide doc.no. 2233/2024 Dt: 3L-B-2024, gift settlement deed vides doc.no. 2254/2024 Dt:05-092024, Sale deed 2043/2024 Dt: 37-7-2024, Mortgage deed vide doc.no. 2370/2024 Dt: 24/9/2024, Mortgage deed vide doc.no. 2371/2024 Dt: 24/9/2024 are void, not binding upon the Plaintiff, direct the municipal commissioner to delete the names of Defendant no. 2 to 5 and 7 deleting their name from the. gram panchayat records and as well as municipal record by inserting the name oF the Plaintiff in the municipal records in respect of suit schedule^propefty."

¶49

N 2 2 in I. 2 !n 1 st of h b h h

¶50

seekin^q Drav nder:-

¶51

" may be^pleased to accord permission to file additional pleadings by way of Additional Affidavit, in the above case, in the interest ofjustice....."

¶52

The sa I wa !t n of 1"t resoondent vide order, dated O9.O6.2O25, aoorieved bv the same, oetitioners herein filed the oresent C.R.P.

¶53

7 !ea rned cou nse A l'eann tr fln lrahalf i h ^f oetitioners submits that in soite of soecific oleas put-forth in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the oetitioners herein/ resoondent Nos.2 to 7 in I.A.No.239 of 2O25 in I.A.No.1O2 .s.N of 2025 o the file of I Additional District f udoe, Sanqareddv District at Sanoareddv, the said^pleas had not been considered at all

¶54

¶55

i I I I I I

¶56

r Additional District Judoe sangareddv District at

¶57

oleadinos bv way of additional affidavit iimolv observino st

¶58

2o25 on the file of r Additionat District Judqe sanqareddv

¶59

affidavit. if anv.

¶60

B. A bare perusar of the averments made at para Nos.2,3 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 7 in I.A.No.239 of zo25 in I.A.No.102 of zo2s in o.S.No.19 of 2025 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy, clearly indicate that specific pleas had been put-forth opposing the grant of relief to the 1't respondent herein by the petitioners herein in addition to specific objections raised pertaining to the very maintainability of the said petition under Section 151 cpc on taw and on facts. However, the

¶61

¶62

¶63

learned Judge without giving any finding on the specific pleas put-forth by the petitioners in the present Civil Revision petition had allowed the same in favour of the 1.t respondent herein contrary to law.

¶64

A bare perusal of the order impugned indicates that the court of I Additional District Judge, Sangareddy District at sangareddy had not assigned any reasons in allowing I.A.No.239 of 2025 in I.A.No.102 of 2o2s in o.S.No.19 of 2025 fited by the respondent No.1 herein, it is evident on perusal of the order impugned, dated 09.06.2025 that the objections raised by the petitioners in the said I.A. pertaining to the very maintainabitity of the said petition for the relief sought for in the subject I.A. had not been considered nor any finding recorded in arriving at the conclusion to allow the said I.A. in favour of the 1rt respondent.

¶65

contract and Leasino Kota vs. shukla and Brothers dated 15.o4.2o1o reported in (2o1or 4 scc 7g5 in oarticular at DA Nos.1 o, 12, L and 1 4, it is as un r:-

¶66

¶67

10' The increasing institution of cases in all courts in India and its resurtant burden upon the courts has invited attention of ail concerned in the justice^{-io.inirtration} system. Despite heavy quantum of iases in courts, in our view, it wourd neither be permissibre no,. po*ibre to state as a principre of raw, that whire exercising power of judiciar review on administrative action and inoi. particurarry judgment of courts in appear before ttre nigner court, providing of reasons can never be dispenseo with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three Oasii essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are rikery to be un..t"o adversery must be granted an opportunity 9f being h;;;. Secondly, Ih"^{authority concernedshourd provide} a fair and transparent procedure and rasily, th; ;uilorit| concerned must apply its rnjld and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has oeen uniformry applied by courts in India and abroad.

¶68

In exercise of the power of judicial revi ew, the concept of reasoned ord lers/actions has been enfor rced equally by the foreign co urts as by the courts in India. The

¶69

whether disposing of the case at admission stage or after regular hearing.

¶70

At the cos.t. of repetition, we may notice, that this court has consistenuy'taken in" view tnai iecording of reasons is an essentiat feature of dispensation of justice. A

.:it. n:I :d

litigant who approaches the -.gr.rt^{with any grievancein} accordance with raw is entitteo to tno*-l(u reasons for grant or rejecti:l :f his prayer. Reason, ;;; the sout of orders' Non-recording oi ,.6uron, courd read to duar infirmities; firstly,. it riay carlg n."jrdice to the affected partv and seconltr; rol. ourtllrrurit;;;;;er tne proper administration of^';Lstiiu. ?l-"ru principres'- u." not onry applicable to administrative oi .*".rtive actions, but they appry with equar force uno, in ra.t, iin .;;"ter degree of precision to judiciir^{-bionorncements.-} .th;-r"iron A judgment withour reason_s- causes orejuligg 1; whom it is pronounced, as t"ha.t ritigani is ,i#or" to againsrknow rhe sround which ui;i, itn tn" i;r;i ;;';ejectins his claim and arso causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to-t!g! iuOgment. Now, we may refer to 3:1,:JlJ;[flT:?F;1"rfi,^{;:,;;ii ],=} 3, rn" His;

¶75

t4. The principle of natural justice has twin in gredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and of them could in the given facts a nd circumstancesViolation of of eitherthe case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule betng applicable to the administrati ve authorities certainly requires that r&

¶76

¶77

as under:-

¶78

In the^{election petition, it was alleged,inter alia, that} the returned^{candidate had failed to make necessary} disclosures^{in the nomination paper/theaffidavit (i.e. Form} 26) which had^{a materialbearingon the electionresult' In} supportofthatallegation,particularsofsuchnondisclosure/incorrect^{disclosure were detailed in the election} petition. These allegations,^{however. were not only} traversed in the^{written statementfiled by the returned} candidate^(i.e. the^{appellant herein) but additional facts} were also laid out^{therein. As a result, the election} petitioner filed an application^{seeking Ieave to file a} replication, which^{came to be allowed by the impugned} order of the^High -Court.

¶79

4 26. As stated^{supra, the statement made in the} replication are the^{denial of the statementmade in} the written statement^{filed by the first respondentto} the election^{petition. If the same is received,no} prejudice would be caused^{tothe otherside,} espLcially, the^{first respondent,Moreover, it is the} bounden'duty^{of the election petitionerto clarifythe} averments made^{by the first respondent in his} written statement.^{That apart,there is no bar for} clarification of^{the earlier pleading,which has already} been taken in^{the electionpetitionby the petitioner.}

¶80

7.L Section 87^{of the 1951 Act providesthat subject} to the^{provisions of the Act, and of any Rules made} thereunder, an^{election petition shall be tried by the} High Court in accordance^{with the procedure} apiticabte under^{the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} f^{iiPc"l to try a suit. A written statement can be} iebutted under Order^{8 Rule 94 CPC. Therefore, it is} incorrect to state that^{filing of a replication in the} proceedings of an election^{petitionhas no legal basis.}

¶81

B. Having taken^{note of the rival submissions, before} we proceed to weigh the^{rival submissionsin respect}

¶82

¶83

of the correctness of the impugned order, it wourd be useful to consider the following issue:

¶84

Whether during the course of the proceeding of an election petition, preferred under the provisions of the 1951 Act, subsequent preading. as envisaged in order B Rure g cpc. is permis-sible? If yes, in what circumstances leave to file such subsequent pleading may Oe granted by an Election Tribunat/Courti

¶85

Subsequent pleading can be filed in an election petition

¶86

9' Before we dear with the aforesaid issue, it wourd be useful to refer to the provisions of cpc in reration to pleadings. order 6 Rure 1 cpc decrares that pleading shall mean a plaint and a written statement. Rule 9 of order.B specificaily edicts that no prlaoing subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or countercraim shail be presented except by the reave of the court. Though, however, the couri riy ut uny time require a written statement or additionar written statement.

¶87

In Anant Construction (p) Lid. v. Ram Niwas, the High Court of Delhi. in^'an exhaustivu ;rOg,,unt authored by R.C. Lahoti, J. as his Lordsfrip inen was. dealt with the terms "reprication" and ,,re5oinJer,,, as is commonly used_ for ubsequent pleadings, ii atso as to when leave for filing subsequent pleading may be granted by the court. Rrter referring to v-arious legal texts including Forpus luris Secunium, it *u, observed: (SCC Online Del paras L2_L4)

¶88

"L2. A more detaired rather exhaustive statement of law is to be fgund in Corpus Juris Secundum. It would be usefut to extract and reproduce th6 following paragraphs:

\5 € :,

; t; I I I ! I I I

A reply or replication is-pulely g defensive pleading, the office or function of whic'h is to deny, or arege facts in avoidance of nu* ,uiters aileged in the prea or new matters.answer and thereby join or make is"sue ur-io ,r.n

¶94

No reply or replication is necessary where the issues are completed by, and no new matter is set up, in the plea or answer

¶95

At common law a replication is necessary where a plea introduces new matter and concrudes with a verification; but under the .od"r. pruiti.u-uitr, or rules of civil procedure of a nrrO". or Stalls J repty to new defensive matter ii not necessary or is ,repry necessary onty *,1.i^o1!ergd by the .o;;t. ; to a counterclaim is generally ne.ersa.y, but under some code provisions no reply or iupfi.ution is required in any case.

¶96

Under the commo.n law system of pleading. plaintiff ffiEy, at his erection, fire a repricaiion to-a -speciar plea.setting up an affirmative defence. on the other hand, it is proper to reject a replication to pleas which merery traverse ailegations of the decraration and set up no new matter. where the prea concrudes to lfe contrary, plaintiff .unnot reply with any new matter but must ,^{either u..ujt it by a similiter} or 9.Ir.r.^{So a good special} i.utrr" can be answered :$li.:I"joinins^{issue thereon and noi ov r;insa} 11. Having obse.rved so, a distinction between a plea requiring amendment of the ptaini;il;;["i'rorgnt to be introduced by way of a reptication was noticed as under:

¶97

"77. A distinction between a plea requirino amendment of the ptaint and , ;i;; ,ortj_.rt"iX be introduced by reprication shail have to be kept in view. A plea ni.n .r"ii.f f V constitutes the foundation of a ctatm made bv the ptainriff or which is eisent;u;' . ";;; ""i

¶98

¶99

plaintiff's cause of action cannot be introduced through a replication. As already stated replication is always a defensive pleading in nature. It is by way of confession and avoidance or explanation of a plea raised in defence. It will be usefut to quote from Halsbury's Laws of England

¶100

Necessity for amendment. The fact that a party may not raise any new ground of ctaim, or include in his pleadings any allegation or fact inconsistent with his prerious pieadings, has been considered elsewhere. In order to raise such a new ground of claim, or to include any such allegation, amendment of the original pleading is essential

¶101

t7.L. In M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, their Lordships refused to consider a plea raised in rejoinder for the first time, observing: (SCC Online SC para 33)

¶102

......The case of bias of the Chief Minister (Respondent 2) has not been made anywhere in the petition and we do not think it wourd be right to permit the petitioner to raise this question, for it depends on facts which were not mentioned in the petition but were put forward i a rejoinder to which the respondents' had no opportunity to repty.,,

¶103

Finally, the court summed up its conctusions as under: (Anant Construction cases, SCC OnLine Del para 24)

¶104

"24. To sum up:

¶105

(1) "replication" and "rejoinder" have weil defined meani ngs. Replication is a pleading by plaintiff in answer to defendant's plea. "Rejoinder" is_ a second pleading by defendant in answer to plaintiff's repty i.e. reptication.

.taaaaaaa.atatal

\ ,

(+l a replication to written statement is not to be filed nor permitted to be filed orainarily, much les in routine. A reprication is peimissiore in three situations:

¶111

(i) when required by law:

¶112

(ii) when a countercraim is raised or set-off is pleaded by defendant; and (iii) when the court directs or permits a replication being filed.

¶113

under:-

¶114

¶115

19' The court cannot rose sight of the fact that a losing litigant has a cause to'pread ano i-iignt to c.hallenge the order if it is aorete i; hi;-. 6pinion or the court arone can exprain the cause which red to passing of the finat order. Whether an .rg;;;;t was rejected varidry or otherwise, reasoning of the order alone can show. To evaluate the submissions is obligation of "the Court and to know the reasons for rejection of its contention is a regitimat" .*plitation on the part of the ritigant Another facet or brovioing reasoning is to give it a value of precedent which can help in, reduction of frivolous litigation.

¶116

I Add iona ict Jud

¶117

:- --.t-f

¶118

¶119

¶120

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the tearned counset appearing on beharf of the petitioners and tearned counser appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The order impugned, dated 09.06.2025 passed in r'A'No'239 0f 2025 in r.A.No.1o2 0J 2025 in o.s.No.1g of 2OZS on the fite of I Additional District Judge, sangareddy District at sangareddy (referred to and extracted above)

¶121

d) The counter affidavit filed

¶122

on behatf of the respondent Nos.2 to 7 in r.A.No.23g of 2025 in r.A.No.102

¶123

ex?

¶124

¶125

of 2025 in o.s.No.19 of 2o25 on the fire of r Additionar District Judge, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy e) The view of the Apex court in the judgments of the Apex court (referred to and extracted above ) and again enlisted below:-

¶126

ix2o1o) 4 SCC 78s ii)(2024) s scc 3s3

¶127

iii)2019 LawSuit (Ail) LztB

¶128

tm DUOn d. d 09. .202 DA th I ditio nal

¶129

¶130

Misce[aneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ pe tition, shall stand closed. firl

¶131

SD/TVIJAYA LAKSHMT ISTANT REGISTRAR

/TRUE COPYII

CTION OFFICER

The I Additional District Judge, at Sanga Reddy. 2. one CC to Sri. Botl; V;;katEr*.r, nr6, noro.ate [opUCl I ?,13 33 t";kt^{v""tlt"iri*,.n,o, ni",;;UioFd6t ""'} pr \ft(

:i t'

HIGH COURT

DATED: 01 10912025

ORDER

CRP.No.2440 of 20Zs

ALLOWING THE CRP