The High Court · 2025

WritAppealunderr:latts;el5oftheLettersPatentAgainstOrderDaterl'16/06/2023in WP.No. 15143 ol 2O2?\ on the file of the High Court IA NO :1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumsti:lnces stated in theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition'theHighCourtmaybepleasedto grant ad-interim in,unction restraining the Respondent No'1 herein from g with the r:onstruction activity in the subiect property beraring H No l - proceedin ikkadapally, Hyderabad in pursuance of the Building Perrnit Order dated 8-403, ch 3 vide F'ermit No.313594i808 4]GHMC|2O23 in the interest of justice' 17lOBl202 Counsel for APPellant in l.As & WA: SRI S.RAMA CHANDRA PR/\SAD M/s.SIVALENKA ASSOCIATES Counsel for the Ftespondent No'1 in l'As & WA : SRI SANKALP PISSAY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 in l'As & WA : GP FOR MA & UD Counsel for Respondent No.3to6 in lAs & WA : SRI G'MADHUSUDHAN REDDY' SC FOR GHMC The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2O2S ln/and WRIT APPEAL No.264 of 2o25 JUDGMENT: (Per ttrc Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Sujog Paul) Sri S.Rama Chandra Prasad, learned corlnsel for the appellant; Sri Sankalp Pissay, learned counsel for respondent No.l; and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC, appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6. 2 Heard on the application for condonation of delay and on the application for leave

3. The impugned order is passed by the learned Single Judge on 16.06.2O23 in W.P.No.15143 of 2023. The present writ appeal is {iled on 17.02.2025 with a delay of 582 days. To wriggle out of the delay, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has not been impleaded by respondent No' 1 (writ petitioner) in the aforesaid writ petition, despite the fact that appellant was a necessary party arrd admittedly, respondent No' 1 2 and the apoellarLt are parties to O.S'No'637 of 2O2' \' Thus, respondent No.l. in all fairness, should have rmplt:aded the appellant ast a l)ilrty. Since the appellant was not a party and came to kn,trv e-bout the impugned order of the learrLed Single Judge after re c:eiving the notice from Greater I {yderabad Municipal Clorpc,ration (hereinafter, referred to as' 'GF[MC'), she filed this writ ap:real with quite promptitude.

4. Learne,d ccunsel for respondent No.1 opposed tht aforesaid interlocuton; app,lications and urged that, admittedll'. both the parties are litigarrts in O.S.No.637 of 2023. The impu;1ned order of the learned Srngle Judge dated 16.06.2023 was filed along with the list of docurLt:nts filed by the plaintiffs in alother sr..tit, namely O.S.No.51 16 cl'.2023. The appeliant is defendant No.2 n the said suit. Along rvitl.r the list of documents filed in the sar'1 suit, the impugned orcler of the learned Single Judge dated 16.O(''.2023 was filed, a cofrv wh ereof was supplied to the lea'rned t ounsel for defendant Irios.1, 2 and 4 on 06.12-2023. Learned couttsel for the said defendalts l'iave received a copy under the signatr'rre' Thus, learned cotLnsel for respondent No. 1 submits that thr,: appellant came to krrcrr'r, about the impugned order on 06.12.2023 and \ \\ 3 thereafter has not explained the delay in filing the present writ appeal.

5. Learned cor.rnsel for the appellant maintained with the stand that the appellant came to know about the impugned order of the learned Single Judge only when she received the notices from GHMC aJter the order of the learned Single Judge dated

16.06.2023.

6. We have heard the parties on the interlocutory application for condonation of delay at length. 7 . Learned counsel for the appellant, despite repeated query, did not meet the a-foresaid point raised by respondent No.1 that a copy of the impugned order dated 16.06.2023 was received along with the list of documents by the appellart, who is defendant No.2 ( f in O.S.No.51 16 of 2023, on 06.12.2023. The enormous delay from that date has not been explained either in the interlocutory application or otherwise.

8. Thus, we a-re unable to persuade ourselves with the line of argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant came to know about the impugned order of the learned ,i*, ) I 4 Single Judge only upon receiving the notices from GHM(). The list of documents filed with the counter a-ffidavit of respondent No.1 which contrri ns the signature of the learned couns,ll for the defendant No.2 in O.S.No.5116 of 2023 shou.ing rec('ipt of the impugned oriler of the learned Single Judge on 06.12.21023 could not be rebutted.

9. Thus, the enormous delay of 582 days in filing t.he appeal could not lre explained satisfactorily. The int.erlocutory application ior c,rndonation of dela1, is accordingly dismr ssed.

10. Resu1taltl.,. the interlocutory application seeking leave and the writ appeal e,r'e also dismissed. No costs /TTRUE COPY// t SD/-I.NIAGALAKSHMI DEPU'IY REGISTRAR /,/ r .]SECTION OFFICER l To Court for the State of Telahqana at Hyderabad. [OUTI

1. One CC to M/s.SIVALENKA ASSOCIATES, AdvocaE. TOPUC l 2. One CC to SRI SANKALP PISSAY, Advocate. [OPUC] 3. Two CCs kr Gr for Municipal Administration and Urban Devel')pment' High 4 one cc ro sRr c.N4ADFiUsUDiAit HEbov, Si ron cHttlc toPucl 5. Two CD Copies,. q". I HIGH COUR.T DATED:1 11A312025 JUDGMENT l.A.Nos.2 and 3 OF 2025 IN/AND WRIT APPEAL NO: 264 OF 2025 :== ii l. c o 2 1 lirH t --.:= (i.( \ ,\\ ORDERING THE l.As & DISMISSING THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS i i I I I i I i : q) 0 q ,{-