The High Court · 2025

...Respondent/Plaintiff lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section '151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fited in support of the peiition, if," Hign Court may b; il;;;i" grant an interim stay of the operation of the order aatea zurr|zoiq;;;IJ ;" l'A No- 7 812024 in o S. No. 260 of 2o22 by the Honourabre r Addr. Junior civir Judge-cum-r Addr. Judiciar Magistrate of Fkit crass at Gajwer, p"nJinj Ji"po.rr of the accompanying Civil Revision petition. lA NO:2 OF 2025 PetitionunderSectionlslCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, il'te Hign Court may b^e- pleased.to int ri. stay of ali further proceedings.in oS No 260 of 2o22 on the file gir;i; of court of the I Addl Junior civil Judge-cum-l Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Ctais at Gajwel, pending disposal of the accompanying Civil Revision Petition' Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri. Srinivasa Rao Sirikonda Counsel for the Respondent: Sri K. GOVIND The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOTJRABLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADTIAVI DEVI CryIL REVISION PETITION NO.324 oF 2025 ORDER This Civil Revision Petition (CRP) is filed against the order of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-l Additional Judicial Magisrrate of First Class at Gajwel in I.A.No.78 of 2O24 in O.S.No.260 of 2022.

2. The petitioners herein are the defendants in the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff. The ptaintiff has filed the suit for perpetual injunction. The description olthe suit schcdule property is as under: ., 5 AIT SC HE D T] LE PROPERTY The agricultural lands beuring Sy.No.l27iEE/l to an extent of 0-39 guntas, situated ar Mun'ajpolly Village ol Gajwel Mandal, Siddipet District, bounded by: East : Land ofSanthosh Kumar, P. Ram Reddy and others West : Land rf K. Chandrasheknr and Sy.No. 128. North : Land ofSellers and others. South : Land ofD. Bhagtalaxmi, K. Suresh and others. "

3. The defendants have filed their written statement on 22.07.2022 stating that the plaintiff has not given the detaits of the.immovable 2 C.R.P.No.324 of 2025 property such as the boundaries of the immovable property in respect of which perpetual injunction is claimed. Thereafter, the defendants have filed I.A.No.78 of 2024 under Order 7 Rule 3 and Section 15I of C.p.C. seeking a direction to the plaintiff to file a sketch map of Sy.No. l27 of Mutrajpalli Village, showing the land of Ac.3.l4 guntas allegedly allotted to his vendor Smt. Swaroopa, the extent of Ac. l.2l guntas alienated in favour of Sri Ram Reddy and the suit land of Ac.0.j9 guntas purch.ascd by the plaintiif, besicies showing the locarion ol the land of the defendants as referred to in the plaint and the document pleaded by the plaintiff.

4. 1-he respondent/plaintiff opposed the said application by filing counter alfidavit and submitted that the defendants are trying to collect evidence by way of filing this application. According to the plaintitf, he has given the deta-ils of the boundaries arrd also rhat the petitioners/det-endants are not expected to file sketch map of the land of the entire extent of Survey No.127 of Mutrajpalli Village and that full lacts will come out during full-fledged trial.

5. The trial Court has dismissed I.A.No.78 of 2024 vrrle orders dt.22.11.2024 by observing that it is the duty of rhe respontlent/plaintiff 3 C.R.P.No.324 of 2O25 to explain his case and that the Court need not direct the respondent/plaintiff to file a sketch map to prove his case which may also lead to collection of evidence since he has filed the suit. Challenging the same, the present CRp is hled

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the submissions made in the affidavit filed in suppoft of the application, has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratibha Singh and another Vs. Shanti Devi prasad and anotherr and also in the case of Zarif Ahmad (Dead) through Legal Representatives and others Vs. Mohd. Farooq2 in support of their petition.

7. Leamed counsel for the respondent/plaintif}, however, supported the impugned order and placed reliance upon the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad as it then was, in the case of Mogulla Ailamma and others Vs. Samba Yellaiah and anothed.

8. Having regard to the rival contentions ancl the material on record, this Court finds that in the suit schedule of the plaint, the northern I (2003) 2 scc a3o '?lzors; t: scc rz: :r 2oo I scc onLine Ap 67 4 C.P..P.No.324 of 2025 boundary of the suit schedule plopgrty is shown as 'Land of Sellers and others'. As rightly pointed out by the leamed counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants, the vendor of the plaintiff had sold away her entire land in three different transactions and the third transaction is the transaction with the plaintiff. In such case, there cannot be any remaining land in her name to be shown as the boundary on the north. The names of 'others' who are on the northem and southem boundaries of the schedule property are also not mentioneci. 'l'heretbre, the provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC would apply. For the sake of ready reference, the said provision is reproduced as r:nder: " Order VII - Plaint

3. llhere the subject-maller ol the suit b immovable proper4'. Wherc lhe subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plotnt shall contuin u description of the property suffcient to identify it, tmd. in case suth property can be identified by boundaries or numhers in t record oJ setllement or survey, the plaint shall specifv such boundar ies or numbers. "

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pratihha Singh and another Vs. Shanti Devi Prasad and another (l supra) has observed thus: 5 C.R.P.No.324 of 2025 "15. Order 7 Rule 3 CPC requires where the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the pldint shall contain a desuiption of the property sulficient to identify it. Such description enables the Court to draw a proper decree as required by Order 20 Rule 3 CPC. In case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a record for settlement of survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or numbers. Having perused the revenue survey map of the enlire area of RS Plot no. 595 and having seen the maps annexed with the registered sale deeds of the defendant judgment-debtors we are clearly of the opinion that the Sub-plots Nos. 595/l and 595/l I were not capable of being identiJied merely by boundaries nor by numbers as sub-plot numbers do not appear in records of settlement or survey. The plaintiffs ought to have fled map of the suit propcrty annexed with the plaint. If the plaintiffs committed un crror the defendants should have objected to it promptl;,. The de/ault or carelessness of the parties does not absolve the trial court of ils obligation which should have, while scrutinizing Ihe plaint, poinlctl out the omission on the part of the plaintilfs and should have insisted on a map of the immovable property forming subjecl-matlcr ol'lhe suil beingfled. This is the first error. "

10. The same has also been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zarif Ahmad (Dead) through Lcgal Representatives and others Vs. Mohd. Farooq (2 supra) observing thus: "II. Order 7 Rule of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (fitr short "CPC"), which pertains to the requirement qf description oJ' immovable property, reads as under: 6 C.R..P.No.i24 of 2025 "-1. Wtere the subject matter of the suit b immovable property- lthere the subject-matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain a description of the property sulficient to identify it, and, in case such properry can be identifed by boundaries in a record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specifl such boundaries or numbers. " The object of the above provision is that the description of the property must be suJficient to identify it. The property can be identifiable hy boundaries, or by number in a public record of settlement or survey. Even by plaint map showing the location of the disputed immovable property, it can be described. Since in the present case, the suit proper\) has been described by the ptaintiff in the plaint not only by the boundaries but also b1t the mu.nicipa! nuntber, and by giving ils descriplion in the plaint map, by no slretch of imagination, it can he said that the suit property was not identifiable in the present

11. Even in rhe order rclied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in the case of Mogulla Ailamma and others Vs. Samba Ycllaiah and anothcr (3 supra), this Court has observed that when the plaintifr gave the particulars of the boundaries or the numbers in a record of statement or survey of the immovable property, which is the subject matrer of rhe suit, it shalI have to be presumed that sufficient particulars are gi.,ren.

12. From all the above decisions, it is clear that when sufficient particulars are iiot given to identifu the suit schedule property, Order 7 7 C,R P.No.324 of2025 Rule 3 of cPC petition is maintainable and it is arso the duty of the trial Court to verifr the same.

13. This court finds that the defendants have filed a sketch map along with their written statement. However, is the praintiff is not accepting the same, it is necessary that the plaintiff fites the sketch map of the immovable property and also gives the details of the boundary on the northem side of the suit schedule property. It is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to establish his right over the propefty and by requiring the plaintitf to file a sketch map of the schedule properry, it does not arnount to collection of evidence. L4' Thereforc, the respondent/praintiff is directed to filc a skcrcrr rnap along with details of the boundary on the northem side o[ the plaint schedule property and such detaits shatt be filed within a period oI one month from the date of receipt ofa copy olthis order and therealter, the trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial o[the suit.

15. With the above directions, this Civil Revision petition is allowed. No order as to costs 8 C.R.l'-No.l24 of 2025 n

16. Pending misceiianeous petitions, i[ any, in this CRP shall stand closed. /TTRUE COPYI' Sd/. T. VIJAY KUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR secSP6rrrcen To, 1 The I Addl Junior Civil Judge-Cum-l Addl Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Gaiwel.

2. One CC to Sri. Srinivasa Rao Sirikonda Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. K Govind Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies MKN/ANV Yv HIGH COURT ; DATED:0410412025 ORDER CRP.No.324 ot 2025 ./... !:lE sr4 14- / l,t il,-;i\r \?, (.( ! a') 2eJUr zffi Si:1--- ,-\t-\, _-i,, CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED GoP(uL WN"