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 pteased to stay all proceedings in 0.S.No.1206 of 2014 as well as in O.S.t lo.'1282 ot 2019 on the file of the Court of the XVlll ACditional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad, pending above Civil Revision Petition otherwise the very purpose of filing above civil Revision Petition would frustrate and defc t. in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P.NARSING RAO Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. MAHESH The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.134 of20.23 DATED THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 Between: P.Murali, S/o Late P.Narsing Rao and others. ... Petitioners-Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 And Chintala Ramesh S/o Late Ch. Rajamallaiah and others . .. Respondents ORDER: 1. This Memorandum of Civil Revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of L-rdia assailing the order dated 08.11.2022 passed in I.A.No. t7t of 2022 in O.S.No. 1282 of 2019 by the learned XVIII Additional Scnior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. Petitioners herein are petitioners-defendant Nos.1 to 3, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are respondent Nos.1 and 2_plaintiffs and respondent No.3 is the respondent No.3-defendant No.4 in I.A.No. 171 of 2022 in O.S.No. 1282 of 2Ot9.

3. Petitioners herein have l-rled suit in O.S.NO.12O6 of 2Ol4 for perpetual injunction against respondcnt Nos. 1 and 2 herein restraining them, their agents or any other person or persons claiming through them from interfering with the existing two doors ,/ ./ ,/i 2 BRMR,J P.No.l34 o1 2023 and Window on the Western side wali of the suit sclr dule property and from blocking the existing doorway of the pe j ioners herein (plaintiffs in O.S.NO.1206 of 2Ol4l in the common pr isage towards uresLern side. The suit schedule property is bearing M r ricipal No. i 5- 8- i0, admeasuring 25.66 Square Yards, situatect t Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad, with boundaries as North: Stair c; ;e of property No. l5-8-12, South: Siddiam ber Bazar Raod, East: Nei hbour's Mulgi No. 15-8-9 and West: Common passage.

4. Respondent Nos.l and 2 herein, who are thr' :lefendants in O.S.No.1206 of 2014, filed their written statement ,. ntending that the petitioners are not entitled for perpetual injunctio :

5. Respondent Nos.l and 2 herein, have .als: frled suit in O.S.No.l282 of 2019 against the petitioners here r and Greater Hydcrabad Municipai Corporation (for short GHMC) s eking relief of perpe[ual injunction restraining defendant Nos.l ro 3 therein (petitioners ald respondent No.3 herein) from carying out any construction in premises bearing shop No. 15-8- ' ) Siddiamber Bazar, Hyderabad which is located towards South E ,rstern Side of the premises bearing Nos.15-8-11 and 15-8-12 and lso sought for mandatory injunction directing defendant No.4 rl ,:rein (GHMC) (Respondent No.3 herein) to dismantle the illegal ant,l un-authorized construction undertaken by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 the r 'jn (petitioners \ a.n 3 BRMR,J CRP.No.134 of 2023 herein) in shop bearing No. 15-8- 10, situated at Siddiambet bazar, Hyderabad. The schedule property is shop bearing Municipal No.15- 8- 10, which is located towards South Eastern side of premises bearing Municipal Nos. 15-8-11and 15-8-12.

6. 1 Petitioners have filed I.A.No. 171 of 2022 in O.S.No.12B2 of 2019 under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code (for short CPC) praying the learned trial Court to club O.S.No. 1282 of 2019 with O.S.No. 1206 of 2OL4 to lead common evidence in O.S.No. 1206 of 20t4. 6.2 It is averred in the affidavit that having allowed the Tr.O.P.No.905 of 2O15 hled by the petitioners-plaintiffs, O.S.No.1282 of 2Ol9 is transfer to the Court of learned XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad to try along with O.S.No.12O6 of 2Ol4 stating that since the subject property involved in both the suits and the documents to be marked are common, it is just and necessary to club O.S.No. 1282 ol2019 u'ith O.S.No. 1206 of 2014, which is pending on the hie of learned XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civii Court at Hyderabad to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to lead corunon evidence.

7. Respondent Nos. I and 2 have filed their counter arrd contended that they have filed suit for perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction against the petitioners and also against GHMC -,,, \ ( 4 BRMR, CRP.No.l34 of 2023 as such the parties in both the suits are not one a: rthe same. The GHMC is not a parry to the suit in O.S.No. 120 6 r , 2Ol4 and the relief prayed in O.S.No. 1206 of 2014 is different Iiom the relief prayed in O.S.No. 1282 of 2Ol9 and prayed ,r dismiss the application

8. Learned trial Court after going through the rnz erial on record, dismissed the application, which is impugned in the Rp.

9. Learncd counsel for the petitioners sui nits that thc learned trial Court failed to consider that botlr the suirs i.e., O.S.No.7282 of 2019 and O.S.No.1206 of 2Ol4 &re Ir, ,\,6gn the same parties arising out of the same schedule property. .l re learne.d trial Court ought not to have dismissed the application ar.l ought to have clubbed both the suits i.e., O.S.No.1282 of 2Ol9 an: O.S.No.1206 of 2014 to Ieacl common evidence to avoid confl i, :i.g decisions. Learned trial Court ought to have seen lhat by clr bbing both the suits, thc precious time of the Court would be saved r nd would avoid multipticity of proceedings. ln support of his conte.ti ,,s he relied on the decision in case of J. Ganapatha zr rd others v. M/ s. N. Selvarajalou Chetty Trust and othersr. ' 2025 INSC 395 BRMR,J CRP.No.134 of 2023 5

10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.l and 2 submits that the petitioners' suit is for perpetual injunction and the suit filed by them in O.S.No.1289 of 2Ol9 is for mandatory injunction and perpetual injunction, which is comprehensive one. The suit for mandatory injunction cannot be clubbed with the suit for perpetual injunction' In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in Samir Narain Bhojwani v Aurora Properties and Investments and another2'

11. Power of the High Court under hrticle 227 of Constitution of India is supervisory and is exercised to ensure courts and tribunals under its supervision act within the lirrrits of their jurisdiction conferred by law. This power is to be sparingly exercised in .cases where errors are apparent on the face of record, occasioning grave injr:stice by the court or tribunal assuming jurisdiction which it does not have, failing to exercise jurisdiction which it does have' or exercising its jurisdiction in a perverse manner (K Valarmathi and Others V. Kumaresan - 2025 SCC Online SC 985)'

12. Suit flled by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein in o'S'No'1289 of 2O 19 is for perpetual injunction and also for mandatory injunction' Prayer is to direct defendant No.4 (Respondent No'3 herein) to remove the illegal and un-authorized construction undertaken by , (20tq t7 scc 203 r 6 defendant Nos.l to 3 therein (petitioners herein) No.15-8-10, situated at Siddiamber bazar, Hyderab:L that they also sought for.perpetual injunction restr.r Nos.1 to 3 therein (petitioners herein) construction in premiscs bcaring shop Bazar, Hyderabad. BRMR, CRP.No. t34 of 2023 r-r shop ltearing and apart from .ning defendant from c: r'r'ing ortL any No.lS-8 i0 Siddiamber

13. Whereas the suir filed by the petitioners ir ).S.No. 1206 of 2014 is for pcrpctual injunction restraining the rc pondent Nos.l and 2 herein, who are the defendants in the suit. rom interlering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment in res rect of ensting tu,o doors and rvindou, on the Western side wall of tl _. suit schedule propcrty and from blocking rhe existing doorwal. r thc common pass3ge tou'arcl s Western side.

14. tn J Ganapathal, the Supreme Court observcc a[,para No.20, which reads as undt:r "Th.c concept of moulding of relief refers to the ability of a court to modif/or .fr.p. a..fi.f _., *f,, by a party in a legal proceeding nr".a o. if_,. crrcumslances of the case and the f ,cts established after a full_fledged trial. fn.'p.i", .pL enables .the court to grant appropriate i.r_, _ ii." ::.". if the relief requested _in' the'pl;di";--i,; ;;r -o. exact or could not be considered UV tt. iou, chan_ged circumstances have .t"Oi..J-tt J-i fi".f obsolete. The Court aims that juitic. i".".,,;;; -.rrr".i ' f". while taking into account tt . .uJfui.rg case. Thc above road map is pr."r.t at-;-4, ,; based on the notion ot flexibitity l" i.flf,'.i_,r, il. \ \ 7 BRMR,J CRP.No.l34 of 2023 jurisdiction, and is tempered by judicial discretion. When moulding the re lie f, the Court considers the issues and circumstance s established during the fu1l-fledged trial, looks at shortening the litigation, and then in its perspective, renders complete justice to the issue at hand. The converse of the above is that the moulded relief should not take the aggrieved party by surprise or cause prejudice. The relief is mouldcd as an exception and not as a matter of course."

15. In Samir Narain Bhojwani2 (3 judge Bench), observed at para 24 reads as under "24. That apart, the leamed Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have committed fundamental error in applying the principle of moulding of relief which could at best be resorted to at the time of consideration of hnal relief in the main suit and not at an interlocutory stage. The nature of order passed against the appellant is undeniably a mandatory order at an interlocutory stage. There is marked distinction between moulding of relief and granting mandatory relief at an interlocutory stage. As regards the latter, that can be granted only to restore the status quo and not to establish a new set of things differing from the state which existed at the date when the suit u,as instituted. This Court in Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden (1990) 2 SCC ll7, has had occasior! to consider the circumstances warranting grant of interlocutory mandatory injunction. ln paras 16 & 17, after analysing the legal precedents on the point as noticed in paras 1 1- 15, the Court went on to observe as follows: (SCC pp. 126-27l' " 16. The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the hnal hearing when full relief may be 8 BRMR,J ( lP.No.l34 ol 2023 granted or to compel the undoing of those z :ts that have been illegally done or the restoraticr of that which was wrongfully taken from the pu rty complaining. But since the granting of suctL an injunction to a party who fails or would fai to r:stablish his right at the trial may cause F,r )a[ injusticc or irreparable harm to the party agt.. rst whom it was granted or alternatively not grar. ng of it to a part). who succeeds or would suc: ed may equally cause great injustice or irrepar z ble harm, r'ourts have evolved certain guidelir :s. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. Thtr is, it shall lre of a higher standard than a prima _ cie case thzrt is normally required for a prohitri .try tnjuncti,'n. (2) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or seri ,us injury u hich normally cannot be compensate r in terms oI m()ne\'. (3) 'I'he balance of convenience is in favour o - he one sceking such relief.

17. tseing essentially an equitable relief the g1 rnt or refusal of an interlocutory mandzr,try injunction shall ultimately rest in the so rnd .iudicial discretion of the court to be exercisr.r in the Iight of the facts and circumstances in e rch case. Though the above guidelines are nei her exhausrive nor complete or absolute rules, rrd there may be exceptional circumstances ner.t ing action, applying them as prerequisite for the 51. ant or refusal of such injunctions would be a so md exercise of a judicial discretion."

16. As rightll. contcnded b1, the iearned counsel ibr respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the suit filed by them in O.S.No.1:l -2 of 2Ol9 is a comprehensive one and it cannot be clubbed wit r t_[e_,--t f61 perpctual injunction 9 BRMR,J CRP.No.134 of 2023 L7. karned trial Court has observed in its order that "As seen from the record parties to the suits filed suits against one another and in one suit defendant No.4/GHMC is made a party but no relief is claimed against defendant No.4. Both the suits llled for perpetual injunction on different cause of actions against one another. As both the suits are filed on different footing and as respondents/ defendants herein are not interested to lead common trial. Hence, it is not a ht case to club both the suits and give common hnding as both parties are contesting on different footing. In the result, petition is dismissed. Both ttre parties in the respective suits are directed to commence trial by next date by producing evidence in respective suits." la. The Supreme Court in Samir Narain Bhojwani2 (Three Judges Bench) hetd that learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench have committed fundamental error in applying the principle of moulding of relief which could at best be resorted to at the time of consideration of hnal relief in the main suit and not at an interlocutory stage.

19. The decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 is squarely applicable to the case on hand in view of the fact that the petitioners have made an application under Section 151 of CPC to club the suit for mandatory injunction to be tried along with suit for perpetual injunction. I t t 10 lRP.No.134 of 2023 BRM

20. Learned counscl for the petitioners submits t rat to meet the ends of justice the prayer in the applications car De molded vice versa. In view of the judgment of the Three Judge Bt rch of Supreme Court in Samir Narain Bhojwaniz, submission ol the petitioners counsel is negative. 2l' The scope of High courr under Arricre 22T is r .nited in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, stated Supra. 22. Learned trial Court has assigned propct reasons and dismissed the application fited by the petitioners, rr ) interference is called for. There are no merits in the Civil Revision ,elition and the same deserves no co.sideration and is liable to be c rsmissed and is accordingly, di smissed. 23. Civil Revision petition is dismissed. The petit rners are given iiberty to file appropriate application before the re:r ned trial court for clubbing rhe suit i.e., suit for perpetual in-jrr rction with the cornprehensivr: suit for mandatory injunction. Or: such filing the learned trial Court shall decicle it on merits. There ; rall be no order as to costs. Interim order/ s if any shalr stand vacaterl Miscellaneous petition/ s shall stand closed. Sd/- S.I ALLIKARJUNA RAO AP:J STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To

1. The XVlll Additional Senior Civil Judqe, Citv Civil CoL 2. One CC to SRt p NARS|NG RAO, AdiocateiOpUCl 3. One CC to SRI K MAHESH Advocate topUCi 4. Two CD Copies t Hyderabad NVB/BA II :-i I \$, HIGH COURT DATED:18112t2025 ORDER CRP.No.134 of 2023 1 r (: D o)\: ( r\ r.) 1t :[8 1l]Zb ./i *te: x DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETi'rION e" le,b