The High Court · 2025

.,.RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Between: Arun Narania, S/o. Kishorilal Narania, Hindu, Aged about 6'1 years, Occ Business, Rlo.4-3-716 to 719, Ramkote, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. TS. .. PETITIONER/APPELLANT AND Arvind Narania, S/o. Kishorilal Narania, Hindu, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Business, R/o. 4-3-716 to 719, Ramkote, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT i J Petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act., prayrn-q that in the circumstances statec in the affidavit fired in support of the petition,' re nign court may be pleased tc, 'rondong the deray of 494 days in firing the cnrn agSinst the order in IA.No 10ri9 of 2o1g in o.s.lrio 789 of zo'ta dated-19 07:lors pasieo'oy III Additional Chief Judge, City Civit Court, Hyderabad. Counsel for the {pp,sllsnt in CMA and l.A.No.1 OF 2021 Counsel for the Respondent in CMA and l.A.No.'l OF 2021 : SRI. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA : SRt R A ACHUTHANAND The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SMT. ]USTICE P.SREE SUDHA IA.No.1 of 2021 in/an d CMA No.104 of 2O2L COMMON ORDER: (per Honble Smt. lustice P.Sree Sudha) Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant/defendant and learned counsel for the respondenflplaintiff and perused the record.

2. I.A.No.1 of 2021 is filed to condone the delay of 494 days in filing the CMA against the order passed in I.A.No.1039 of 2019 in O.S.No.789 of 2016 dated 19.07.2019 by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellanVdefendant aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed in the underlying interlocutory application filed under Order )OCflX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC granting ad interim injunction restraining the appellan(defendant from making any additions, alterations or causing damage or changing the nature of the premises to the schedule E propefty.

4. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the aforesaid suit filed for declaration, partition of A, 2 1 B, C, D and E properties mentioned in the suit schedule and with a claim of Rs.li),22,9241 -.

5. The alpellant/defendant contends that Schedule _ E property covering an area of 90 square yards situated at Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad, consisting of ground and first floors and terrace, is using for commerr:i,al purpose by both the appellant and the respondent; that the building rs 100 years old and with an intention to renovate the ground and first flours of his share to keep the construction material stored on the 2nd floor, he has erected a gate and locked the said gate to prevent the theft oF the material, and in order to harass him, the respondent herein filed the underlying I.A. and the suit.

6. It is fr"rrther contended by the appellant/defendant that originally the CMA was filed on 03.12.2019, but the Registry returnecl the same for complying with certain objections; that since, the bundle was misplaced in the office of the Advocate, he could not comply with the objections a.c represent the case; that the certified copies of the order of the Couft below has to be obtained afresh in order to rebuild the bundle and due to COVID-19, non-availability of counsel and non_ functioning c,f copying section for a long period, the copies could not be obtained vvithin a reasonable time and thus, the delay occurred, which is neither willful nor wanton. I 3

7. The appellant/defendant also contends that the Court below has failed to see that there is no basis for the apprehension expressed by the respondent/plaintiff that the renovation work being done by him in respect of his portion of ground and first floors would cause damage to the building and the same shall not be permitted to be done pending the suit.

8. The respondent/plaintiff filed counter-affidavit denying all the averments made by the appellant/defendant and stating that the subject building is 100 years old building and if any additions or alterations are made, the same wourd cause damage to the structure of the building and prejudice the rights oF the respondent; and that the inordinate delay of 494 days cannot be condoned and accordingly prays for dismissal of IA as well as CMA. 9 We have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

10. Though the appellant/defendant contends that the delay occurred due to misplacement of the bundle in the offlce of the learned counsel, that may not be a ground for condonafion, as it is as simple as to take another certified copy of the order passed by the Court and reconstruct the bundle, but he did not do so. The reasons stated by the appellant/defendant for condoning the delay in filing the CMA are l 4 not convincing and satisfactory. There is no cause much less any sufficient cause to condone the abnormal delay of 494 days in filing the appeal and as such I.A.No,1 of 202L is liable to be dismissed.

11. Adrnittedly, appellant/defendantand the respondent/plaintiff are co-own€rrs to the subject property and they both are in possession of the same. As rightly observed by the Court below, when both the parties ar,l owners of the subject property, one person cannot deprive the rights of the other being co-owner. It is a fact that if an old building is done with any drilling work, there is a chance of collapsing the buildirrg or the same would cause damage to the building.

12. On perusal of the material available on record and on considering the submissions made by both the paties, the Court below had cateqorically held that if injunction was not rJranted, the respondelnt herein will be put to loss and his rights over the subject property rvill be deprived pending the suit and thus, allowed the applicatior by granting ad-interim injunction restraining the appella nt/deFendant from making any additions, alterations or causing damage r>r changing the nature oF the subject property.

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the well versed findings of the Court below, we are / 5 of the view that the order of the Court below does not call for any interference by this Court and the CMA is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, I.A No.1 of 2027 is dismissed and consequently, the CMA is also dismissed. No order as to costs.

14. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. M. VIJAYA BHASKER JOINT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 /gh tP The lll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad. One CC to SRl. VEDULA CHITRALEKHA, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. R A ACHUTHANAND, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies t HIGH COIJRT DATED: 3AlMn025 ) I \e sl-A /t' ) 0 I r{irt 21J25 t ) {' f )t 5y:415\{ .-0 , COMMON ORDER |.A.NO.1 0F 2021 IN/AND GMA.No.1(t4 ot 2021 ( c ,) ,, DISMISSTN(3 BOTH CMA AND I.A.NA,.1 OF 2021