Disposed

St.Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society v. Hotel Santosh Lodge and Restaurant

Telangana HC24 Feb 2025CRP/2977/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petitions challenged trial court orders allowing amendment of a suit's cause title to substitute respondent No.2's particulars in an injunction suit. Finding no perversity and the amendment necessary for trial, the High Court declined to interfere and directed the trial court to expedite and decide the 2012 suit within six months.

What did the court decide?

Revisions disposed of; impugned amendment orders upheld; trial court directed to expedite and decide O.S.No.421 of 2012 within six months; no costs.

St.Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society Vs Hotel Santosh… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

13217l

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

IV1ONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 2977 and 3076 ot 2013

¶7

Civil Revision Petition No.2977 of 2013

¶8

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitutlon of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 10-06-2013 in lA.No.335 of 2O13 in lA.No.924 of 2012 in OS.No.421 ol 2012 on the file of the Court of the 1"t Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad

¶9

Between:

¶10

St.Thomas (SPG) Tamil Church Society, 7-1-1 to 7-1-6, Station Road, Secunderabad. ...Revision Petitioner/Respondent

¶11

AND

¶12

Hotel Santosh Lodge and Restaurant, Olo. 7-3-13, ll Floor, Opp to Alpha Hotel, Station Road, Secunderabad, rep., by GPA Holder Mr.lsmail SK, S/o lbrahim, Age:42 years, Occ: Business Rl/o. 7-3-13, Near Railway Station, lvlarket Road, Secunderabad. ...Respondent No.1/Petitioner

¶13

The Church of South lndia Trust Association, Rep., by its GPA's

¶14

(i) Rt. Rev. B.P.Sugandhar (ii) [Vlr.J.Manohar

¶15

...Respondent No.2/Respondent

¶16

(Respondent No.2 is not necessary party to this revision)

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(CRPMP. NO: 3907 OF 201!l)

¶18

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 stay all further proceedings in OS.No.421 of 2012 including injunction petition in lA.No.924 of 2012 on the file of the 1't Junior Civit Judge court, Secunderabad pending disposal of the above revision.

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. J. Prabhakar, Senior Counsel representing Sri S.N. Veerender Singh

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. Karthik Madhanu, representing

¶21

Mr. D. Madhava Rao

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. A. Srinivas

¶23

Civil Revision Petition No.307 6 of 2013

¶24

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 10-06-2013 in lA.No.2B8 of 2013 in OS.No.421 of 2012on the file of the Court of the 1't Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad

¶25

Between:

¶26

St.Thomas^(SPG) Tamil Church Society, T-1-1 to 7-1-6, Station Road, rep. by its President, Secunderabad.

¶27

...Revision Petitioner/Respondent

¶28

AND

¶29

1 . Hotel S^antosh Lodge_ and Restaurant, O/o. 7-3-13, ll Floor, Opp to Alpha Hotel, Station Road, Secunderabad, rep., by GpA Holder Mr.lsrirbil SK, S/o lbrahim, Age:42 years, Occ: Business R:/o. 7-3-13, Near Raitway Station, MarketRoad,Secunderabad. ...RespondentNo.l/petitionerlplaintiff

¶30

The Church of South lndia Trust Association, Rep., by its GpA's

¶31

(i) Rt. Rev. B.P.Sugandhar,

¶32

Mr.J.lr/anohar

¶33

( ii)

¶34

..Respondent No.2

¶35

(Respondent No.2 is not necessary party to this revision)

¶36

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(CRPMP. NO: 4068 0F 2013)

¶37

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 stay all further proceedings in o.s.No.421 of 2012 on the file I Junior civil Judge Court, Secunderabad pending disposal of the revision petitioner. ,

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. J. Prabhakar, Senior Counsel representing Sri S.N. Veerender Singh

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. Karthik Madhanu, representing Mr. D. Madhava Rao

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Mr. A. Srinivas

¶41

The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER

¶42

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI CML REVISION PETITION Nos.2977 and 3O76 of 2O13 COMMON ORDER:

¶43

The CRP.No.2977 of 2013 is hled challenging the order dated 10.06.20 13 in I.A.No.335 of 2013 in I.A.No.924 of 2Ol2 in O.S.No.42 l of 2Ol2 and the CRP No.3O76 of 2Ol3 has been frled challenging the order dated 10.06.20 13 in I.A.No.288 of 2073 in O.S.No.42 1 of 2072 on the file of the learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

¶44

Since both the Revision Petitions are arising out of the same suit i.e., O.S.No.42 1 of 2Ol2 arld the issues are connected, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order

¶45

Heard Mr. J.Prabhakar, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri S.N.Veerender Singh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. Karthik Madhanu, learned counsel representing Mr. D.Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the respondelt--

¶46

¶47

No. i and Mr. A.Srinivas, learned counsel for^the respondent No.2.

¶48

The revision petitioner is defendant^No. 1 and^the respondent No. 1 / plaintiff hled the suit against^the revision petitioner/defendant for perpetual injunctionⁱⁿ respect of suit schedule property.

¶49

Briefly stated, the reievant facts are that in^the pending suit, the plaintiff hled the application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Rule 28 of Civil^{Rules of} Practice with a prayer to amend the cause title^{of the suit} to supplant the particulars of respondent^{No.2. Similarly,} in the pending interlocutory application,^{the I.A.No.335} of 20 13 has been frled for similar^relief.

¶50

The Court beiow having considered^the submissions passed the impugned orders allowing^the petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant

¶51

No. 1/respondent No. 1 preferred these revisions

¶52

¶53

7 . It is brought to the notice that while admitting the revision petitions, stay was granted against all further proceedings of the suit, as such, the suit has been kept pending since 2013. Having regard to the fact that the amendment sought for in the cause title was only to replace the details of respondent No.2 and as no impropriet5r or perversity is found in recorded findings of the Court below in the impugned order that the aspects raised in the petition and suit can only be determined in the full fledged trial and the amendments are necessary for determining the controversy between the parties, this Court hnds no tenable ground to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. Thus, keeping open the objections and contentions of the parties in regard to the controverted aspects in the suit and as the suit is of the year 2012, directing the trial Court to expedite the proceedings and to adjudicate the suit itself at the earliest is found proper.

¶54

B. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to take up O.S.No.42 I of 2Ol2 on priority basis and upon extending

¶55

¶56

proper opportunity to^{the parties, adjudicate the suit at} the earliest^{preferablywithin a period of six (6) months} from the date^{of receipt of a copy of this order'}

¶57

g. With these observations, these Civil Revision

¶58

Petitions are disposed^{of. No order as to costs}

¶59

As a sequel, miscellaneous^{petitions, ifany,}

¶60

pending in this civii revision^{petition shall stand closed'}

¶61

S - V HARI PRASAD DE UTY^REGISTRAR

¶62

//TRUE COPY//

¶63

CTION OFFICER

¶64

To 1 The^'1't Junior^{Civil Judge, City Civil Court'at Se} 2 One CC to^{Sri S} N. Veerender^{Singh, Advocate [OPUC]} J One CC^{to [\ilr. D} Madhava Rao,^Advocate IOPUCI 4 One CC to^{Mr. A} Srinivas,^Advocate IOPUC] 5 Two CD CoPies Kam/PSL \r

derabad

HIGH COURT

DATED:2410212025

COMMON ORDER

,/.
,z'-' : E s )h 14.
(
2 5 j U t'l 2W
19
,+
*
o
egP

¶70

CRP.Nos.2977 and 3076 of 2013

¶71

DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS

¶72

w Xtra:

St.Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society v. Hotel Santosh Lodge and Restaurant

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

St.Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society v. Hotel Santosh Lodge and Restaurant

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.Kadiyala Supraja @ Valluri Supraja Vs Mr.Kadiyala Rajashekhar

G.Padma (Died) Vs A.S. Ravindranath

K. Mallaiah Vs M. Chokka Rao

St. Thomas (Spg) Tamil Church Society, Secbad Vs Hotel Santosh Lodge and Restaurant, Secbad and Ano

Atchuta Jagadish Chandra Vs Karamsetti Venkata Varaprasada Rao

Praveen Gujja Vs M/S Shriram city union finance limited