The High Court · 2025

"' Petitioners/ Defendants AND Business

1. Durga Rani Agarwal, Wo' Ganesh Dutt Agarwal' Age 40 years Occ ' 2. Suman Agarwal, Wo Jagdish Kumar Agarwal' Age 37 years' Occ . Business' 3. Anita Agarwal, W/o Vishnu Kumar Agarwal' Age 36 years' Occ Business' (All R/o. Plot No 73, Sai Baba Colony' Sitarampur' Bowenpally' Secunderabad-500 011 ) ...RESPONDENTSI Plaintiff IA NO: 10F 2025 petition under section 151 cpc praying that. in the circumstances stated in the affidavit riteo in supiort'"itn'" p.iiii"'",in" nign court mav be pteased to tnJj'a!'"it'*J J"t'"" dl.:31 12'2024 passed by the I in the suit vide o s No 178 or stav of the operation Adat. chier Judge, citv c*ilt'";';'ii;;;J "r idiz p""Ji"g diiposal of this First appeal Counsel for the Appellant: SRt' VADEENDRA JOSHI -j5s'B Counsel for the Respondents: SRI D. MADHAVA RAO The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SMT. IUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA A.S.No.99 oF 2025 ruDGMENT: (Per Hon'bte Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili) This appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment and decree' dated, 31..12.2024, passed in O'S'No'178 of 2017 by the learned I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court' Secunderabad'

2. Heard sri Vadeendra foshi, Iearned counsel for the appellants and Sri D. Madhava Rao, learned counsel for the respondents'

3. Learned counsel for the appellants had contended that the respondents have filed the subject Suit i'e' O'S'No '178 of 20\7 ' wdet section 6 of the specific Relief Act, 1963 (fot short, 'the Act'), against the appellants, contencling that they were in Possession of the suit schedule Property and that they were dispossessed by the appellants high-handedly ln the said Suit' the respondents have sought for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property along with permanent injunctiory which is not permissible under Section 6 of the Act. If iniunction is.sought as a prayer' then the Suit 2 AKS,J & ETD,J A.S.No.99 of 2025 carutot be triecl as a summary Suit. It has to be tried as a regular suit' But th:e ..iar Court has tried the subject suit as summary suit and decreeri the subject Suit in favour of the respondents ulde impugned jrrclgment, dated 31."12.2024, an<j elirectecl the appellants to deliver vtrcant possession of the suit schedule property and also granted perrnaneni injunction against appellant No.3 not to change the nature or'the suit schedure property and als. not to alienate the same. Once injunction was sought, the trial Court could not have tried the subject Suit as a summary Suit.

4. Learne<l counsel for the appellants, in support of his submissions, hac-l relied upon the jucigmcnt of the Ho.ourable supreme Court in H.p.vedavyasachar v. shivashankara and anofherr, wh.rein the Ho.ourabre supreme Court rras herd that in a Suit filed under Section 6 of the Act, only recover), of possession can be sought, but not injunction. Admittedly, in the instant case, the trial Court has decreed the Suit in favour of the respondents and directed the ,rppellants to deliver vacant possession of the suit ' 1zooe1 s scc zl r -) AKS,J & ETD,J A.S.No.99 of 2025 schedule property to the respondents and also granted permanent injunction, which is not permissible' Therefore' appropriate orders be passed in the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and decree, dated 31 -12.2024,and allow the appeat'

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents had contended that the respondents have filed the subject Suit under section 6 of the Act. In the subject suit, only as a consequential relief, permanent iniunction was sought' Learned counsel further contended that the respondents have no objection if that portion of the relief of granting permanent injunction is deleted' In respect of delivery of possession of the suit schedule property is concerned' it is very much permissible under Section 6 of the Act' Therefore' that portion of the order of the trial Court where it has granted permanent injunction may be set aside' but delivery of possession of the suit schedule property to the respondents be upheld' as admittedly, the appellants have forcibly thrown out the respondents from the possession of the suit schedule property way-back in the year 2017 and that nearlY after seven years,. the respondents could t- a succeed in 1;etting the judgment and decree. Therefore, appropriate 4 AKS,J & ETD,J A.S.No.99 of 2025 orders be passed in the appeal.

6. This Clourt, having considered the rival submissions made by the learnecl r:ounser for trre parties, is of the considered view that the trial Court erred in granting permanent injunction in a Suit, which r'vas filed under Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the impugned judgment and decree, dated 31.72.2024, renclerecl by the trial Court are liable to rrg 5s1 aside. In the interest of justice, trris Court is of the co,sidered view that the matter can be remittecl to trre trial Court for passing appr,)priate orders. 7' Accordingly, the judgment ancl crecree, ciated 2r.12.2024, rerrdered in O.S.No.17g of 2017 by the learned I Additional Chief Juclge, City Civil Cour! Secunderabacl, are set aside and the matter is remitted to the triar Court for passi.g appropriate orcrers. since the subject Suit is of the year 2017, the trial Court is requested to dispose of the, subject Suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a perio,i of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy 5 A(S,J & ETD,J A.S.No.99 of 2025 of this order. Since the pleadings and evidence in the subiect Suit are completed, the trial Court has only to pass final orders' after hearing the parties. The hial Court shall pass final orders in the subject Suit without being influenced by any of the observations made by this Court. It is always open for the respondents to file an application before the trial Court for deletion of iniunction prayer in the subject Suit and on such application being filed' the trial Court shall adiudicate the subject Suit under Section 6 of the Act'

8. With the above observations/directions' the appeal disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs 1S Miscelianeous Applications, if any' pending in this aPpeal * - "-'o''Nl I6N+-$=[Tl"$t shall stand closed. coPYll SEcTloN oFFlcER 'rTRuE ( with records) To,

1. .7 4 kulilSL to SRI D MADHA :":ITTrlit*#:::{:}"::}:'iiF"' O-"" "" Two CD Copies (r- HIGH COURT DATED:'13/03/2025 +DECITEE JUDGMENT APPEAL SUIT No.99 ot 2025 22 SEPm .;? ....,.It'l .' DISPOSI\IG OF llIL irt,pllAl SUIT WITHOUT'COS'|S ( dL)