Dismissed¶41

Arsha Shivanna v. Arsha Gouramma

Telangana HC4 Feb 2025CRP/3795/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court (Hyderabad), Civil Revision Petition No.3795 of 2024, decided 04-02-2025 by K. Sujana, J. Execution/revision: order dated 20-11-2024 in E.P.No.10 of 2018 in O.S.No.127 of 2001 (I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad) allowing execution of a twice-affirmed decree upheld despite plea of conflicting injunction in O.S.No.11 of 2016 (Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad) and alleged civil imprisonment; appeals A.S.No.15 of 2012 and S.A.No.742 of 2015 previously dismissed; revision dismissed with no costs. Statutes referenced: Article 227, Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Since the decree in O.S.No.127 of 2001 was upheld by the first appellate Court and this Court, filing the other suit for the same property is not in accordance with law. ¶37

Arsha Shivanna Vs Arsha Gouramma — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3795 OF 2024

¶6

Petition Under Article 227 ot the Constitution of lndia against the Order dated 20-11-2024 passed in E.P.No. 10 ot 2018 in O.S.No. 127 oI 20O1 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge at Adilabad.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Arsha Shivanna, S/o. Yerranna, aged about 7'1 years, Occ. Retd.Govemment Employee, R/o H.No. 7-7-44156120, Vidyanagar, Adilabad.

¶9

$.,- I

¶10

..PETITIONER/ Respondent / JDR/ Defendant

¶11

AND

¶12

Arsha Gouramma, Wo Ashanna, Aged about 67 years, Occ Household, R/o H-No. 7 -7 -44156/20, Vidyanagar, Adilabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTi Petitioner / DHR/ Plaintiff

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶15

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 the orders passed in E.P No. 10 of 20'18 in O.S No. 127 of 2001 dated20.11.2024 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad.

¶16

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. T" SRUJAN KUMAR REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI SOMA RAVI KIRAN REDDY

¶18

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶19

¶20

r]:IE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶21

olvl]; REVISION PETITION No.3795 of 2024

¶22

ORDEII:

¶23

'I his l ivil Revision Petition is hled aggrreved by the order 1irtec 20.ll.2024 passed in E.P.No. 10 of 2018 in O.S.No 127 of 2OOl by the I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Adilabz d

¶24

'l he petitioner herein is the defendant in O.S.Nc'.127 of 2OO1. E.P.I{r.10 of 2O18 is frled by the plaintiff for execution of decle:: irr O.S.No. 127 of 2OOI, wherein the tria. Court allowec thc E.P. Aggrieved by the said order, this r-evision petitior is fi .t:d by the defendant.

¶25

Ilear<1 Sri T.Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the pet tionr:r and Sri Soma Ravi Kiran Reddy, learned ,rounsel for the rt spr nrdent.

¶26

'lhr: , r ntention ol learned counsel for the pctitioner herein i,; t 1at the trial Court erred in passlng o rder in tr.P.No. 1 I ol' 2018 without thoroughly considering the r elevant facts rLr d evidence including the existing inlunct.ion in O.S.No 1 I ot 2016 and the pending appeal. The order passed

¶27

¶28

¶29

by the trial Court disregards the fact that Injunction order passed in O.S.No. 1 | of 2016 by the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad is still valid ald binding. The trial Court without resolving ttre conflict between two injunction orders i.e., O.S.No.127 of 2OO1 arrd O.S.No.1l of 2016 erred in proceeding with the execution and ordering civil imprisonment. As such, requested the Court to set aside the order impugned.

¶30

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that against the decree granted in O.S.No.127 of 2001, the petitioner herein hled appeal vide A.S.No.15 ot 2072 before the IV Additional District Judge, Adilabad which was dismissed. Against the same, petitioner also liled S.A.No.742 of 2O15 before this Court which was also dismissed. Therefore, there is no illegality in the order of trial Court. He further submitted that hling O.S.No. 11 of 2016 is nothing but abuse of process of law. As such, prayed to dismiss this revision petition.

¶31

Considering the submissions made by both the counsel and the material on record, it is an admitted fact that O.S.No.127 of 2OOi was decreed by the trial Court. Against

I I

':':;:'.'

the sanrc, pr:--itioner herein frled A.S.No. 15 of 2012, u,htch was also dirir-riss,t:d, then petitioner preferred S.A.No.7'42 of 2015 before tiris Court, which is also dismissed. The only contenl i()n r>t' petitioner herein is that he frled O. S. No.¹ 1 of 2016 b,:frre the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad wherein, the trial Court lg.rnt3C injunction against the respondent here:in and withour. r:onrs dering the same, the trial Court allo'a,ed the E.P. When th,., Co rrt decreed the suit in O.S.No. 127 of 2OO I which was uph:rld by the hrst appellate Court and this Court, filing the other sui: for the same property is not in accordance with lanv. 'Vhilr' arguing the matter, the learned counsel for the petitiorer infrrrmed this Court that there are compromir;e talks between the parties, whereas learned counsel fcr the responrle nt rlenied the same and stated that therer are rLo such comprcrrLise r-alks between the parties. Further, the suit is of the year 2OO t, decree was upheld by the hrst appellatr: Court and this^,3ourt. Therefore, there is no illegality in the r:rrder of trial Ccurt-^'lhere are no merits in this revision and the same is liab1t 1,r be dismissed.

(-:

7 . Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.^No

¶42

costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand

¶44

closed.

¶45

//TRUE COPY//

¶46

Sd/- A, SRINIVASA REDDY ASS S NT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER

¶47

¶48

1 . The I Additional Junior Civil Judge^{at Adilabad.} 2. One GC to SRl. T. SRUJAN KUMAR^{REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶49

One CC to SRl. SOMA^{RAVI KIRAN REDDY, Advocate} [OPUC]

¶50

fr.^-t 4. Two CD Copies kul lp

HIGH COURT

DATED:O41O212025

ORDER
c,
CRP.No.3795 ol itO2.l

¶55

-' --::-::: -
'.
,,.:t'; ^.<- .i T q ; .:-)l
ri--G'
!.".7r <.'
't''J
t; 04 hP'i zffi i rl
, .. k ..'./
,/
-..!- -t -+ r'. .i-:- ... .,'r' i-:-. .-. . - :; .{- ' ,7 l

¶56

DIS]{ISSING Ttt[, CI I II- I{E,VISION PIi'I-ITION

¶57

b
\ai
9t

Arsha Shivanna v. Arsha Gouramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arsha Shivanna v. Arsha Gouramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. M. Sarojini Devi Vs the State of Telangana.,Rep.,Pp and Another

K.Bala Krishna Rao and 2 Others Vs Smt M.Sudha Rani and Another

Malloju Banesh Vs The State of Telangana

Vollavotu Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana

Asaduddin Owaisi, Vs Ms. Nowhera Shaik

Katanguru Satyanarayana Reddy Vs Vikasa Bharathi VidhyaNiketan(Vibhavim)Educational societty