The High Court · 2025

2 M. Sailaja, Wo. M Ravinder Babu Aged about 50 years, Occ. House wife, R/o. H.No.6-'1-1 321541101, FlatNo.101, FirstFloor, KarthikeyaApartments, Walker Town, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Between: 1

2. lVl Ravinder Babu, S/o. Late lvl. Narsimha, Aged about 59 years, Occ. RTC Coach Builder, Fl No.6-1-1321541101,Flat No.'101, First Flbor, Karthikeya Apartments, Walker Town, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad: It/. Sailaja, Wo. M Ravinder Babu Aged about 50 years, Occ. House wife, R/o- H No.6-'1-1321541101, Flat No.101, First Flooi, Karthikeya Apartments, Walker Town, Padmarao Nagar, Secunderabad. .. Petitioners/ Respondents And Uma Devi, D/o Late I\,4. Narsimha, Aged about 62 years, Occ. Self-Emploed, R/o. H.No.9-3-621 to 624,2nd Street, 4th Lane, Near Gopalpuram P.S., Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad . 500 025. .. RespondenU Petitioner Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumst:rnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to vacate the interim stay order dated 26-04-2024 in lA No. 1 of 2024 irr CRP No. 778 of 2024 passed by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 1 51 CPC praying that In the circumst:rnces stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Stay all further proceedings in O.S.No. 516 of 2022 on the file of the I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil court, at Secunderabad pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. DEVENDER KUMAR JAIN Counsel for the Respondents: SRI K. ROHIT The Court made the following ORDER: THE HONOURABLE SMT. WSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CML REVISION PETITION No. 778 of 2o124 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is Iiled aggrieved by the order dated 07.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.1O9 of 2023 in O.S.No.516 of 2022 by the learned I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. The Suit vide O.S.No.5l6 of 2022 is filed for damages of Rs.3,20,000/- by the petitioner agaiast respondents. During the pendency of the petition, petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.1O9 of 2023 to appoint and Advocate Commissioner to note down the actual position and physical features of the terrace, water tanks, water connections meddled for the respondents, CC cameras, removal and broken of all flower plants, closure of passage going to the terrace etc. The trial Court after hearing both sides, dismissed the application on 07. 1O.2023. Aggrieved by the said order, this civil revision petition is preferred. I 2

4. Petitioner stated that she has right to enter into the terrace as per judgment in O.S.No.3OS of 2008 arrd also in A-S.No.SS of 2OO9 for hassle free entry to the terrace :f 2.d floor and not to meddle with water connection. 'Respondent No. I removed all the flower pots and thrown away which were nursed by petitioner for more than 3O years wi thout any hindrance. Respondent No.1 stated that all the ten:ace rights vested with him. The trial Court observed that as there is contradiction between statement of pelitioner and respondent No. 1, the said issue has to be decided in the main suit after leading evidence from both sides and accordingly disrnissed the application.

5. l,earned counsel for petitioner contended that e.s she filed suit on the ground that respondent No. I damaged C(l cameras, flower plants, meddled with water pipes of overhead water ranks, closed the way through iron ladder to the terrace by welding an iron sheet on the ladder. It is relevant 1.o note the physical features. The contradiction between the sale deed executed in t-avour of the respondent No.1 and the judgment in a J O.S.No.305 of 2OO9 is nothing to do with the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner. The trial Court also observed that the there is no destructed material i.e., flower plants and the trial Court misconstrued the pleadings and thus requested the Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

6. Admittedly, dispute is between sister and brother. It seems that all of them are residing in the same house, but he intruded into her possession and damaged flower plants and also restricted her entry into his portion, as such petitioner claimed for damages. It is for the petitioner/plaintiff to lead evidence regarding the said facts and it is a triable issue to be decided in the main suit. Defendants in his written statement stated that his parents have 9 children i.e., four sons and five daughters. The father of defendant No.1 died and his mother, brothers and sisters became legal heirs. Plaintiff is third daughter and defendant No. 1 is third son to their parents. After the death of his father, his mobher purchased House No.7- l-253/ 1 in the joint names of herself and the elder sister of the defendant No.l through registered sale deed bearing document 4 I No.232l1985 dated 27.05. 1985. Defendant No. 1, plaintiff, their mother and other brothers and sisters exr)ept elder brother of defendant No. 1 used to live in the said house. Elder sister of defendant No.l got married and wai living away from the family members. Plaintiff after marriage mo'"ed to the ground floor of the said house along with her husband. Defendant No.1 purchased a flat in the 2.a floor of ttre building bearing No.9-3-62413 from its lawful owner for Rs.:2,00,O00/- and he paid the said amount and it was also registr:red in his name on 30. 1 1.2006, from then onwards he is resirting in the said flat along with his wife.

7. Learned counsel for respondents contended that plaintiff has no right to go to the terrace and tJre defendants has rights over the terrace portion and it was mentioned in the registered sale dated 30. 11.2006. It is also stated that plainl,iff is elder sister of defendant No. 1 and she is residing on the gr-ound floor of two-storied building. The trial Court has rightly considered the arguments of both sides and dismissed the applic ation. 5

8. It is for the plaintiff to prove her right over the terrace portion then only she is entitled for right over the terrace porlion and also other factors required for granting of the damages and thus it cannot be deciddd by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The trial Court has rightly considered ali the aspects and this Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

9. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confrrming the order of the trial Court dated 07.12.2023 passed in I.A.No.1O9 of 2023 in O.S.No.516 of 2022. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. I //TRUE COPYII SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SEC TION OFFICER To 1. The I Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. 2. One CC to SRl. DEVENDER'KUMAR JAIN AJvocate tOpUCJ 3. One CC to SRl. K ROHTT Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies KuVgh / ' HIGH COURT DATED:0210412025 1' ,/ '//;" /.'.r |* \,: ORDER CRP.No.778 of 202a $* s \y \ DISMISSING THE CIVII- REVISION PETITION / 4t/ , /