The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section '15'l cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in Ep No. 264 of 2022 in o.s.123g ot 2o1s before the Honourable Vlll Junior civir Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad pending disposal. I lA NO: 2 OF 2023 Between: Shaik Taskeen Fatima, Wo. Ali Adil Wasem, Aged about 40 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H.No.16-2-867121 , Akbar Bagh, Saidabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State. AND ...PETITIONERYRESPONDENT NO.1

1. Nawab Mohammed Jameeluddin Khan, S/o. Nawab Mohammed Kabiruddin Khan, Aged about 66 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.1B-B-450/39, Akbar Nagar, Edi Bazar Hyderabad, Telangana State.

2. Mohammed Ansar Ali, S/o. Mohammed Khairath Ali, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.17-1-3751N311J, Khalander Nagar, Phisal Banda, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS

3. Mohd. lshaq, S/o. Mohd. lbrahim, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No.17-2-108, Yakutpura, Hyderabad, Telangana State. and also residing at H.No.17-1-375/1/5/A, Phisal Banda, D.M.R.L. X Road, Hyderabad, Telangana State. ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT NO.2 IN S.A. (Respondent No.3 is not the necessary pa rty to this l.A.) 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 vacate the interim orders dated 09-03-2023 passed in l.A. No 01 of 2023 in S. A. No 90 of 2023 ordering both the parties to maintain Status Quo till 23-03-2023, considering the above stated facts and reasons in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellants: SRI K. DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI Y. SAI SANKALP Counsel for the Respondent No.2: NONE APPEARED The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT :/ HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMT NARAYANA ALISHETTY SECOND APPEALNo.90 of2023 JUDGMENT: This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 02.02.2023, passed by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courr, Hyderabad, in A.S.No. I 24 of 2022, whereunder and whereby appeal was dismissed conhrming the order, dated

29.07.2022, passed by rhe VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in E.A.No.75 of 2022 in E.p.No.264 ot ZOZZ in O.S.No.1238 of 2015. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.l herein filed O.S.No.l238 of 2015 before rhe VIII Junior Civil Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad, against respondent No.2 for eviction and to handover possession of H.No. l7-l-375, situated at phisalbanda, D.M.R.L. i- Roads, opposite ro Zafargadh, Hyderabad (hereafter referred to as 'E.p.schedule property'). The said suit was decreed vide order dated, 01.06.2016, directing the defendant to handover possession of the suit schedule property within 30 days from the Eate of the judgment. Respondent No.2 did not comply with the \ 2 LNA, J SA.No.9O of2023 order of the trial courl, therefore, respondent No. 1 filed E.P.No .264 of 2024 for execution of the judgment dated 01.06.2016. Pending adjudication of the EP, appellants herein filed E.A.No.75 of 2022 under order 21, Rules 97 to 102, read with Sections 47 and 151 of C.P.C., claiming that appellant No.2 is the owner of the H.No. 17-1- 375lN3llJ (hereafter referred as 'claim schedule property') having purchased the same from appellant No.l under registered sale deed bearing document No.6331/2021 dated 13.09.2021, and are in possession and enjoyment of the claim schedule property. It is further contended that on 11.04.2022, the respondent No.I/DHR along with others proclaimed that they obtained decree in respect of claim schedule property and threatened him to demolish the structure of the claim schedule property by accompanying the bailiff Mr. Narender.

3. Respondent No.l filed counter stating that the claim schedule properry and'the E.P. schedule properly are different and averred that in view of the orders passed by the Court, he along with bailiff visited EP schedule property and averred that the claim petition frled by the applicant is collusive and the same is filed at the behatf of judgment debtor I J LNA, J SA No.90 of)021

4. The trial Court vide impugned order dated 29.07.2022 dismissed the E.A. No.75 of 2022 by observlng that E.P.schedule property and claim schedule property are completely different and moreover, bailiff of the Court has already submitted report that E.P.schedule property and claim schedule property are not one and the same.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.07 -2022, appellants preferred A.S.No.124 of 2022 on the file of the tX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

6. On appeal, the first Appellate Court, being the final fact- finding Court, re-appreciated the entire evidence and material available on record and dismissed the Appeal, vide its judgment dated O2.O2.2l23.Aggrieved by the same, present Second appeal is filed.

7. Heard-Sri K Durga Prasad, leamed counsel for the appellants and Sri Y. Sai Sankalp, learned counsel for respondent No.l. Despite service of notice, there rs no representation on behalf of the respondent No.2. Perused the entire material available on record- 4 LNA, J SA.No.90 of 202)

8. Leamed cqunsel for the appellant contended that the trial Court as well as first appellate Court failed to consider that decree passed in suit is not executable in the sense that the claim schedule property and E.P. schedule property are not one and the samd and under the guise of the same, valuable rights of the appellants are effected. Leamed counsel further contended that first appellate Court ought to have decided the application filed under order XXI, Rules 97 of C.P.C after full-fledged trial. However, in the present case, both the Courts below have erred in dismissing the application filed by the appellants. However, the learned counsel fairly submitted that in view of the categorical observation of the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court that E.P. schedule property and claim schedule property are different, no further orders are required to be passed in the present appeal

9. A perusal of the record would disclose that the trial Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants by duly taking into consideration the report filed by the bailiff that the E.P. schedule property and claim schedule property are different and their boundaries are also different. The first Appellate Court also dismissed 5 LNA. J SA No.90 of 2023 the appeal with an observation that the Court did not f,ind any irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court.

10. In view of the above discussion and submissions made by the leamed counsel for the appellants, this court is of considered view that no orders are required to be passed in the present case. 1 1. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is closed. No costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- M..MANJULA OINT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER I

1. The lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. The Vlll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 3. One CC to Sri K. Durga Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Y. Sai Sankalp, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Plp/gh w To, HIGH COURT DATED:1010312025 JUDGMENT SA.No.9O ot 2023 trC Sra Ie 1 ..t. () 2 I Atn ?025 t tEsp"tCs .-O o .+a t CLOSING THE APPEAL. WITHOUT COSTS. 11,'-