The High Court · 2025

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 leave to petitioner to file 1A.No.55412022 (old lA.No 1212016) in AS.No.41 of 2004 on the file of the Principal District Judge at Nizambad, dated. 28-09- 2022 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T.V.KALYAN SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: --- CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No:56 of 2023 Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC aggrieved by the order and decree dated 28-09-2022 in l.A No.555 of 2022 (Old l.A.No.12 of 2016) in IA No 105 of 2008 in AS.No.41 ot 2A04 on the file Principal District Judge, at Nazanrabad. Between: Bhandari Vijaylaxmi, Wo Late Bhandari Rajender, aged about.48 years, Occ Houshold, R/o. Subashnagar, Nizamabad. ..,AppellanUPetitioner/L.R AND

1. Peesari Linganna (Died), .Appellant in AS No.41 of 2004 2. Banje Peesari Baappa, (died per LRs respondent No. 3 to 11) 3. Peesari Pedda Lingam, S/o late Peesari Baasppa, aged about_ 63 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o. 1-4-49, Gole Hanuman chowk, opp Bharat Band, N izamabad.

4. Peesari Balamani, D/o. Late Peesari Basappa, aged about Agriculture, R/o,1-4-50, Gole Hanuman Chowk, opp N izamabad. 60 years, occ. Bharat Band,

5. Peesari Nadipi Lingam, S/o. Late Peesari Basappa, aged about. 57 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o 1-4-49, Gole Hanuman Chowk, opp Bharat Band, N izamabad.

6. Peesari Chinna Lingam, S/o late Peesarr Bappa, aged about. 52 years, occ. Agriculture, r/o Agriculture, Rlo. 1-4-3811, Gole Hanunran Chowk, opp Bharat Band, Nizamabad.

7. Peesari Bhushan, S/o. Late Peesari Basappa, aged about. 48 years, occ. also Agriculture, R/o 1-449, Gole Hanuman Chowk, opp Bharat Band, Nizamabad B- Peesari Ravi, S/o late Peesari Basappa, aged about. 45 years, occ. Agrrculture, R/o.'l-4- 3B/1 , Gole Hanumar Chowk Opp.Bharat Band N izamabad

9. Kovoori Bhagya @ Roja, Wo Koovoori Ramesh, aged about. 43 years , occ. Household, R/o. Agriculture, R/o 1-4-50, Gole Hanuman Chowk, opp Bharat Band, Nizamabad. l0.Peesari Borra Lingam, S/o. Late Peesari Basappa, aged about 41 years, occ. Agriculture, R/o. Agriculture, Rlo.1-4-49, Gole Hanuman Chowk, opp Bharat Band, Nizamabad. '1 1. Peesari Ramu @ Ramesh, S/o. Late Peesari Basappa, aged about. 41 years, occ, Agriculture, R/o. Agriculture, R/o 1-4-49, Gole Hanuman Chowk, opp Bharat Band, Nizamabad. ... Res po n d en URes po n den t lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated an the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to injunction restrarn the respondents/respondents alienating mortgaging gifting transferring or creating any charge of any manner otherwise conveying the suit schedule property I favor of 3'd parties and affecting the registration of sale deed in respect of suit schedule. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI T.V.KALYAN SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: -- The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT 'I'il[i I{i}}.'T}LE SRI JUSTICtr CADT PRAVEEN KUMAR C.M.A. Nos.48 and 56 of 2023 ( {)B! ivl(}N .i Lj t}Cll,lENT: Since. tlre irari.;es to the present Appeals are {}ne and the srr.r.ic u::.i hoLh the orders arise out of the same Appeal Suit, these Anpca!s are i-.eing dispcsed of by this common judgment. l. ileairl l.-:riied counsel for the appellant. In spite cf service o!' nuiice .rri rrsnondents, there is no representation on tlreir i-. ir:rIi'- tir,:' t f i-t'sr--i, ci ihroLre.h counsel. :1. C.I4.a.l.lo.48 of 2C23 is fiied challenging the oxier dated It.0'j.l(rll :,);isscd iii 1.A.No.554 o1'l0ll {01d i\o.12 of 2016) in ,:r li.No.]i oi 2004 on the file olthe Princioal Disu'ict Judge at i. (.\,i ,\.\'c.55 ol 2A23 is filed challenging the orCer dated -,..09,1[t]l passeii ii: i.A.No.Si5 of 2027 (Old No.13 of 20i6) in i,\.No.lili cl 2008 in A.S.No.4l of 2004 on the file of the Principal District -luilge at Nizamabad. :i. lhe appellant herein filed I.A.No.l05 of 2008 in A.S.No.41 tri 2{)0ui :;eeking irnplearimenr in the said Appeal as appellant No.2 on the ground that she purchased the agricultural land admeasuring Ac.0.38 gts in Sy.No.415 situated ar Nizantabad Sivar. Nizamabad from Banje Peesari Linganna, s/o.Woddenna r/o.Jhandagaili, Armoor under registercci salc dced ,,lirreii

04.07.1001 .

6. 'lhe appellant herein filed I.A.No.l05 of 200t1 in A.S.No,4 I of 2004 on 05-02-2008 contending that she is not aware of'the litigation betu,een Peesari Linganna and Peesari ilasappa iil rcspect of the land and that her vendor also did not infonl hcr about such litigation. She came to knorv about pendencv oi'the ligation and the said litigation decided in f-avour o1'l]asappa and her vendor filed an Appeal against the said judgment, rvhich rvas pending consideration before the Cour1. It i-s furlhel pleadctl il.rat she has purchased the land under valuable consideration u iihout the knowledge of litigation and she being a honu lide purchrser ol the said land, her right cannot be affectcd. As sucl.r, shc ll led I.A.No.l05 of2008 tbr her impleadment in A.S.No..l I oll(Xr.l. 1 . However, when the matter came up lbr consideration on

30.01.2015, since there was no representation on behall'o1' the appellant herein, the learned Trial Court disrnissed l.A.No. i05 of ,1 l 1008 irr ,,\.:i.No..1 i of 2004 tbr default. Consequently, the Appeal u'as also drsmissed. 8 Arr.siieved hv the same. the appellant herein filed trvo ai;plicatrui.s 5ctb:'; tl.re iearned Trial Court viz., I.A.No.554 ol l():: (()l(j Ni;.il oi'1016) under Order 4l Rule 9 C.P.C. to readmi" tire ..\ppeal, which was dismissed fbr default on .l l. i I .:(i1: i.r its original stage and i.A.No.555 o1' 2022 (old No.13 oi')016) in I.A.No.lO5 ol 2008 in A.S.No.4l of 2004 ,.Lndcr ()rlt'r..r Rule 9 r'lu,Section 151 CPC to restorc I.A.No.l05 oi'1008 to its orig,inal stage, which was dismissed lbr default on 3l.li.2t)li. contcnding that the said Appeal and the said r\poiicatioris ri erc penriing since a long time and were posted tinally ,-) r1 14. I ! .:015, on rvhich date. leamed counsel was cngageil ;rr iirt: l!'arned District Court, Nizamabad and by the Lir:re, lcurneij counsei engageci by the appellant herein reached ,,hc l:alnec lrial Ccurt, the matter was called and since, there \\1as no rcpr-eserrtat ion. the above Interlocutory Applications filed 'ni her t e rc disraisseci as not maintainable. (). Learned counsei appearing for the appellant contended that t he learr-rerr rounsel engaged by the appellant herein/proposed Ft 4 pafty before the leamed Trial Court was held up in other ('ourt and as such, the said counsel could not appear belore the leamed Trial Court when the subject Interlocutory Applications ri ere called and as there was no representation on behalf ot' the appellant herein, the iearned Trial Court disniissed thc applications filed by the appellant herein as not maintainable.

10. Leamed counsel for the appellant relied upon a judgrnent ol- the Flon'ble Supreme Court in Mysore Urbsn Developfirent Authority Zs. S..S.Sarve.rlrrwherein it was held that the tirst Appeal is a valuable right fbr the appellant and the appellant w.as entitled for an opportunity to prosecute the appeal on merits. il the appellant advocate did not appear may be for myriad reasons, the Courl could have imposed some cost on them f-or rcstcrrrtion of the appeal to compensate the respondent, instead of deoriving thera of their valuable rights to prosecute the appeal on merits I l. Upon perusal of the record speaks that the appellant herein filed an application for irnpleadment vide I.A.No.l05 of 2008in A.S.No.41 of 20A4 on 05.02.2008. The said application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 30.1 1.2015. lmmediately, on '(zors) s scc taa

19.12.2015, the appellant l'rercin filed I.A.No.554 ol 2022 for restoratiorr oi the Appeal and 1.A.No.555 of 2022 to restore L.t.l'io.I0 j oi 2008 ro its original stage

12. Primt...rrrcic. this Court is cl the opinion that despite the rppellant iri ailing the rerredy' ol filing restoration petitions u'itliin ihe period oi'limitation, the learned Trial Court without assigning an)' reasons dismissed I.A.No.554 of- 2022 and i.A.No.-i5-5 o1'l02l in A.S.No.41 oi 2004. Such orders ought i'rot to havc passed bv the learned T'rial Court withoLrt assigning anv rcason:i. tlrough the appellant herein has prima.fhcie made out a ground tbr proviciing an opportunity to plead her ('rlnlcnI tct ls i l. L-l n{iL'r these circurnstanccs, this Court deerns it proper to set aside the orders passed by the learned 'lrial Court in I.A.No.i;5.1 c,1'1021 rOtd No. ll of 2016) and I.A.No.555 of 2022 (oi.J No.13 'rf 1016 in LA.No.l05 o12008 in A.S.No.4l of 2A04 by restor-irrg l.A.No. 105 o12008 to its trle, and accordingly, they ale sct asidc-

14. 'lhe lt-'ai-ned -frial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.No. 105o12008 in A.S.No.4l of 2004 within a period of one 1 \ I month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after aflbrding thc opportunity of'hearing to both parties. ln the erei.it, the afbrcsaid application is alloived, since the Appeal suit is of the year 2004. the leamed -l rial Court shall cndeavour to dispcse ol' the sarne as expeditrously as possible preferably within a period o{- six (6) months thereafter.

15. 'l'hese Appeals are allowed to the extent indicate above. Nr-r c()sts

16. As a scque!, miscellaneous petitions pending if an1' shall stanci c Iosed. a2 S .K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY' \ CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, at Nazamabad. 2. One CC to SRI T.V.KALYAN SINGH, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies VBisa HIGH COUIRT DATED:2310912025 COMMON JUDGMENT CMA.Nos.48 and 56 of 2023 /tr,' r, lri 't ( 0 4 r,rolJ 21tr if. a+ '-':-ArcHc c ALLOWING THE BOTH CIVIL MESCELLANEOUS PETITIONS $ €