Jijula Laxman Babu (died) as per LRs Vs Jennaikode KaMalarnma w/o Late Narsaiah (died) as per LRs

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

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

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos: 5301 5302 and^{5305 OF 2018}

¶6

C.R.P.No. 5301 of 2018:

¶7

Petition Under Article 227 of Constitution of^{lndia aggrievedby the order} dated 19-12-2O17 in l.A.No. 343 of 2017 in O.S.No.^{208 of 2OO7 on the file of the} Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,^Mahabubabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Jijula Laxman Babu (Died)

¶10

Jijula Roja Ramani, w/o Laxman Babu Aged about^{52 years,. occ- Household}

¶11

Uula Sravanthi, dio late Laxman Babu, aged about^{35 years,occ-Student}

¶12

Jijuia Swathi, d/o late Laxman Babu, aged about^{33 years, occ- Student}

¶13

Jijula Yamuna, d/o Late Laxman Babu^{Aged about 31 years, occ- Student}

¶14

All are r/o Narsampet village and Mandal,^{WarangalDistrict.}

¶15

...PETITIONERS/ ( Plaintiffs )

¶16

AND

¶17

'I . Jennaikode Kamalamma W/o Late Narsaiah (died), Secunderabad

¶18

Jennaikode Srinivas., s/o Lingaiah, aged about^{34 years, occ- Employee, r/o} H.No. 4-4-89, New Bazar, Mahabubabad^{Villageand Mandalat present} residing Plot No.5/A Behind lddgah,^P &^{T Colony, Secunderabad.}

¶19

TheSub-Registrar, [/ahabubabad

¶20

The District Collector, Warangal

¶21

Chepuri Papaian, s/o Narsaiah aged^{62 years,Occ- Agriculure,Rl/o H.No} T-1,' Sri Pr6m Sai Nilayuam, Thirumalaya^{Nagar Moulali,Hyderabad-S0.}

¶22

Jennaikode Vimala^(died)

¶23

Jannikode Naresh Kumar, s/o Late^{Krishnaaged about 23 years, R/oH.No.} T-1, Sri Prem Sai Nilayam, Thirumalaya^{Nagar Moulali, Hyderabad-S0.} (Res.Nos. 3 and 4 are not necessary^parties)

¶24

...RESPONDENTS/ ( Defendants)

¶25

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶26

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 OS.NO.20812007 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at lvlahabubabad pending disposat of the above CRP and pass

¶27

lA NO: 2 OF 2020

¶28

Petition under Section 148 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the interim order dated 14-09-2018 in CRP No.530'1 of 2018 and until further orders, till the disposal of CRP .

¶29

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶30

Petition under Section 148 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to extend the stay granted on 14-09-2018 in CRP No. 530 1 of 2018 till the disposal of CRP.

¶31

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶32

Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying [f at in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to extend the stay granted on141091201\ in CRP No.5301 of 2018 till the disposal of CRP ,

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. N. V. R. RAJYA LAKSHMI

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2,5 & 7 : SRI M. RAMA RAO

¶35

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 5302 OF 2018

¶36

Petition Under Article 227 ot lhe Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 19-12-2017 in l.A.No. 341 of 2017 in O.S.No. 2OB of 2OO7 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad.

¶37

Between:

¶38

Jrjula Laxman Babu (died) as per LRs, Warangal

¶39

Jijula Roja Ramani, w/o Laxman Babu Aged about 52 years, occHouseholdr/o Narsampet village and Mandal, Warangal District.

¶40

Jijula Sravanthi, d/o late Laxman Babu, aged about 35 years, occ- Studentr/o Narsampet village and Mandal, Warangal District.

¶41

Jijula Swathi, d/o late Laxman Babu, aged about 33 years,. occ- Studentr/o Narsampet village and Mandal, Warangal District.

¶42

i ll j ll I

¶43

1: lL I i l iit'r

¶44

5 Jiiula Yamuna, d/o^{Late Laxman Babu Agedabout31 years' occ- Studentr/o} f,thisampet village^{and Mandal, Warangal District'}

¶45

...PETITIONERS/^{( Plaintiffs} )

¶46

AND

¶47

Jennaikode^{Kamalamma w/o LateNarsaiah (died)as per LRs' Secunderabad}

¶48

Jennaikode^{Srinivas,s/o Lingaiah, aged about 34 years, Occ- Employee' rio} - H.N;. ;4--89, New Eiazar, uZnauuuioqo Villa^ge.and Mandal, at present i"i,oing atFrbi r.lo.sln^{Behind lddgah'P & T-eolony, secunderabad'}

¶49

The Sub-Registrar,^Mahabubabad

¶50

The District^{Collector, Warangal}

¶51

" i-i,'s,i Chepuri Papaiah, pr.i" sri r.rirryrl.ilini;,;i;tt;^{S/o. Narsaiah, aged 62 years,} fuagai uoulati^{o.cc- Aoriculture' r/o} Hvderabad-50^{H No'}

¶52

Jannaikode^{Vimala(died)as perLRs,}

¶53

Jannikode^{NareshKumar.s/o Late Krishna aged about 23 years, r/o-H.No.} ' ili , Sii Fr", s"i ttitryjtn, Thirumalaya Nagar Moulali, Hyderabad-5o' (Reiponoents No. 3 arid 4 are^{not necessary parties)}

¶54

...RESPONDENTS^{( Defendants)}

¶55

A NO: 1 OF 2018

¶56

PetitionunderSectionlslCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesStatedin the affidavit^{filedin supportof the petition,ih"-Higr' court may be pleased_togrant} further^{proceedingsin oS No.208of} .2007^{on the file of the Principal} .irv "t-rri irriioi Ci"ir Judge,^{at Mahaiubabad,pendingdisposal of the main CRPin the} interest of^justice.

¶57

Counsel for the^{Petitioner:SRl.N. V. R' RAJYA LAKSHMI}

¶58

Counsel forthe^{Respondent Nos.2,5 & 7 : SRI M' RAMARAO}

¶59

CIVIL REVISION^{PETITIONNO:5305 0F 2018}

¶60

Petition Under^{Article 227 ol constilution of lndia aggrievedby the order} datedlg-.12-2017inl.A.No.342of2017ino.S.No.2o8ot2007onthefileofthe Cor* ot tft" Principal^{Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad'}

¶61

Between:

¶62

"l . Jiiula Laxman Babu (died)

¶63

Jtiula Roia Ramani,^{w/o Laxman BabuAged aboqt} !f^{years' occ:}

¶64

Hl;"i;1,1/o llariirhpet village and Mandal, Warangal District

¶65

3.JiiulaSravanthi,d/olateLaxmanBabu,agedabout35years'occ:Studentr/oNSrsampet^{village and Mandal, Warangal District}

¶66

Jiiula Swathi, d/o late Laxman^{Babu, aged about 33 years, Occ:Student,r/o} Nhrsampet village and Mandal.^{Warangal District}

¶67

Jiiula Yamuna, d/o Late Laxman^{Babu Aged about 31 years,Occ: Student r/o} N'arsampet village and Mandal,^{Warangal District}

¶68

...PETITIONERS/ ( Plaintiffs)

¶69

AND

¶70

Jennaikode Kamalamma w/o Late^{Narsaiah (died)}

¶71

Jennaikode Srinivas, s/o Lingaiah, aged^{about34 years, Occ: Employee, r/o} H.No. 4-4-89, New Bazar, Mahabubabad^Village and^{[Vlandal,at present} residing at Plot No.5/A Behind lddgah, P and^{T Colony, Secunderabad.}

¶72

The Sub-Registrar, lilahabubabad

¶73

The District Collector, Warangal

¶74

Chepuri Papaiah, s/o Narsaiah, aged^{62 years,occAgriculture, r/o FI.No T-1} Sri Prem Sii Nilayuam, Thirumalaya^{Nagar lt/oulali, Hyderabad-S0,}

¶75

Jannaikode Vimala^(died)

¶76

Jannikode Naresh Kumar, s/o Late^{Krishna aged about23 years, r/o H No-} T-'1 Sri Prem Sai Nilayam, Thirumalaya^{Nagar lt/oulali,Hyderabad-SO.} (Res.Nos. 3 and 4 are not necessary^parties)

¶77

...RESPONDENTS( Defendants)

¶78

lA NO:^'l OF 2018

¶79

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstancesstated in} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the^{High Courtmaybe pleased to grant} stay of all further^proceedings in os^{No.208of 2007 on the file of the Principal} Junior Civil^judge, at Mahabubabad^{pending disposal of the main CRP in the} interest of^justice.

¶80

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶81

Petition under Section 15'1 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Cou.rt maybe pleasedto} extend the stay granted on 14-09-20'18 and^{whichwas extendedup lo 15-11-2023'} in CRP No. 5305 of 2018 may be extend for^{further period till the disposalof CRP.}

¶82

Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N. V.^{R. RAJYA LAKSHMI}

¶83

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI^{M .RAMA RAO}

¶84

The Court made the following COMMON^ORDER:

lt; lI t i i I I i

F

ir

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICEN. TUKARAMJI}

¶89

c.R.P.^{Nos.53015302 and5305 of 20{8}

¶90

COMMON^ORDER:

¶91

Heard Ms.^{N.V.R. Rajya Lakshmi' learnedcounsel for} revision^{petitioners/plaintiffs'}

¶92

As these revision^{petitions are emanating from the common} order, they^{are heard together and are being disposed of by way} of this common^order.

¶93

3(a). C.R.P.No.5302^{of 2018 is filed against the order passedin} 1.A.No.341^{of 2017 whereby prayed for recallof PWs'3and 4 for} the^{purpose of marking exhibits Al to 46'}

¶94

3(b). C.R.P.No.5305^{of 2018 is filedagainst the order passedin} l.A.No.342of2olTwhichwasfiledforre.openingthesuitforthe purpose of recalling^{PWs.3 and 4 for markingexhibits Al to 46'}

¶95

3(c). C.R.P.No.5301^{of 2018 is filedagainst the order passedin} l.A.No.343ot2olTwhereinprayedfortreatingthesuggestions given in the^{cross-examinationby the counsel for defendant} Nos.2 and^{5 referring to the sale agreement' as Ex'A1 as Ex'A6'}

¶96

All these^{petitionsin O'S'No'208of 2OO7 on the file of the} Principal^{Junior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad' were adjudged tettfe}

.impugned order.

2

I

Learned counsel for the revision petitioners would submit that the suit was filed for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 29.09.1997. ln the suit the plaintiff No.1 got examined himself as PW.1 and marked Exs.A1 to ,46 in 2005; Subsequently, the suit was clubbed with another suit O.S.No.77 of 2007, wherein the documents marked earlier were again marked as Exs.Al to 46 as per the docket order dated 08.08.2005. However, the documents were not physically marked and signed by the presiding Officer. ln these circumstances, the plaintiff No..l has passed away and to get marked the documents recalling pWs.3 and 4 is essential for marking the documents and also to mark the suggestions given by defendant Nos.2 to 5 in regard to.the sale agreement dated 29.09.'1 997 as Exs.A1 to 46, the petitions ought to have been allowed.

¶101

Learned counsel further submits that the trial Court without considering these aspects and by mentioning that since the matter has been transferred, fresh trial has to .be conducted, dismissed the petitions with a direction to adduce evidence.

¶102

Additionally, pleaded that since there is an interim direction, the proceedings before the trial Court have been stalled and .examining^the witnesses is essential to prove the revision

I

3

I I

i

I -,1

petitioners/plaintiffs' case for^proper adjudication^{of the matter'} Hence^prayed for intervention.

¶109

Mr. M. Rama Rao,^{learned counselfor the respondents} lleaded^{in favourof the impugnedorder. He pointed that the suit} was indeed returned^{for presentationbefore properCourt and} that is how the suit^{came on to the file of PrincipalJuniorCivil} Judge, tvlahabubabad,^{in this position the revision petitioners} asking for continuance^{of the earlier proceedingscannotbe} sustained and the trial^{Court had rightly observed in the} impugned order that^{freshtrial has to be conductedand the} revision petitioners will^{get opportunity to bring the relevant} documents on record.^{Thus, dismissal of the petitions filedby} revision^{petitioners is} ProPer.

¶110

ln these counter^{pleadings, the point that arises for} determination is, whether^{the revision petitioners madeout a case} for re-open, recall and^{marking the documents in the facts and} law?

¶111

As^per the revision^{petitioners, the suit vlde O.S.No.1't7 of} 2007 upon transfer^{was renumbered as O.S.No.208of 2007 - On} the other hand, learned^{counsel for respondents submits that the} suit was returned for^{presentation before appropriate Court,as} such the^{proceedings would} be^{held afresh on the file of the}

¶112

4

¶113

il l i i I I

¶114

Principal Junior Civil Judge. The parties are in agreement that no fresh trial has been commenced before the Court

¶115

are 11. The applications filed by the revision petitioners indicating that in continuance of the earlier suit^proceedings the present suit is being conducted and the stand taken in the affidavit annexed to the interlocutory applications are demonstrating that documents marked in the earlier proceedings were already marked as Exs.A1 to 46, even after the suit was clubbed with another suit and the contention is that the marking was not properly endorsed on the documents by the Presiding Officer. Therefore, this statement is evidencing that documents were already marked on 08.08.2005 as per the daily proceeding sheet. However, endorsement is not made on the documents by the Court by the docket proceedings, if it so the Court would complete the formality of marking or endorsing on the document as it has been already recorded on the docket. For this purpose re-opening or recalling would not be necessary. That apart marking of suggestions given by the defendant Nos.2 to 5 in the cross-examination as exhibits is unacceptable for the reasons, such marking is not required as the suggestion is already part of record and no legal provision allows such marking

¶116

12 On the other hand, if the trial Court is taking up denovo trial, revision petitioners will have opportunity to produce the

5

I

,/'

evidence^{and without there being specific application'the revision}

¶121

petitioners can^{present theirwitnesses along with the documents'} ln such case^{re-opening and recalling and askingthe Court to}

¶122

mark the^{earlier documents wouldbe redundant'}

¶123

Therefore,^{in either case the prayer of the revision} petitioners in the^{impugned applicationsare failingon meritln} effect the revision^{petitions are liable to be dismissed'}

¶124

14 ln the result,^{these civil revision petitions are dismissed' No}

¶125

costs.

¶126

As a sequel,^{miscellaneous applications, pendingif any'}

¶127

shall stand^closed

¶128

IITRUE^COPY"

¶129

Sd,^{- MOHD .ISMAIL,} E UTY^REGISTRAR