High Court · 2025

lqh]?ffi i[kY:"iri1r,'.f fir?a1Bi?;!?ixi,fl r,EJ,:xx,f, :?t,,

3. D. Hemalatha, W/o. Surjershan Goud, D/o. Late Nomula Vittalaiah Goud. A:f.l3if.,il4syears,occ. House hord, Ry;. Al;;il;r.prly vilase and Mandar, - );rflXlf,x:rali, S/o. Late Nomula vittalaiah Goud, Ased abrout 65 years, occ ..... Respondents/petitioners/plaintiffs

5. Nomula Prakash Gouri ,.S/o Late.Nomula Vittalaiah Goud, Aged about occ. Driver, eotfi Ryo. Eirrk'p=r;ili""d;:Si,i"kerpaly Mandar, R. R. BtJ,?,3[:, 'il+:f E'ii",tr,faut#ilit$ldf, r'-lTrirtlli#l#3s$3ru'nu' ,R,".:l[3lX"So"l;,'*i:V,'[31,1Ef; iiI;ft%i$'-f''1$"1]J"€!lf ii: ,3Tjfi 'fi ,'"1tlui*u$;[x?ilx'."1?i*'%0"??ff lsS#'i" ,B::'R';,,:l?',ls:$S";1,1i+:J"v,F;J;:tf, S?'#;fif fi 'tT",x"ffi '"i53ik'il133[ia vears'occ ":*:?ffi13;!:,S,"1';*.'il:,":*"*APsl"?at333'il3;!sfl il"'itio""'u"6sarDistrict Respondents/Defendants 1 to 7 IAN O:1 OF 2023 Petition und the affidavit filed in all further Proceedi Judge at Chevella the interest of Just Court. er Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstan-ces stated in ffi l:.:iHi,tt*f nq$;'"L"dft '.":,"*,:.,';:r ;I i3;ill$.t3Ji#"1'3'i;io;t ;; iozt onthe rire or the Hish The petition/Appeal coming on for hearing' upon oerusinQ the Petition and the affidavit filed in suppon i#'""? and the order of t[" r-riqi Court order dated hearing tre arguments oi fRunlnxRRA RAo made herein 'nJ'pon BErHttlA Advocate ro' iil""'Jti'iio?'tJl'- n u"sHr REDDY Advocate for the "a!"p""i""tt.l and the Court made the following' ORDER /n HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1043 OF 20/23 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated

01.17.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2078 in O.S.No.276 of 2OO7 passed by rhe Senior Civil Judge at Chevella, Ranga Reddy District.

2. Heard M. Kamalakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, despite service of notice, there is no repiesentation on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the revision is disposed of basing on the material available on record.

3. The petitioners herein are the defendant Nos. B to 10 and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein are the plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 4 to 10 are the defendant Nos. 1 to 7 before the trial Court. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. Brief facts relevant for adjudication of the present civil revision petition are that the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.276 of 2007 belore Senior ]udge at Chevella Ranga Reddy District for partition and separate possession in respect of agriculfure land admeasuring Ac.01-08 guntas in survey number 80 and 81 respectively, situated at Bulkapur village, Shankar Palli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, against the respondent Nos. 4 to 1O/defendants Nos.1 to 7. Subsequently, the .\- /. 2 L^'.4..J. CRP Na.l013 oJ2023 respondent Nos.8 to 10, were impleaded vide orders in I.A.No. 41 of 2077

5. It appears that respondent No. 10 purchased land admeasuring Ac.0.20 gts, in Sy No. 80/AA and Ac.02-04 grs, in Sy No.81/AA rorally admeasuring to Ac.2.24 gts, from respondent No. 6 and in furn, the respondent Nos.6, alienated ttre same in favour of respondent No. 1 to 3 herein. lt appears that during the pendency of the suit, an understanding was arrived between petitioner. and responclents Nos.1 to 3 as per which the petitioners asreed to relinquish their rigl-rts, over the above extent of land admeasu:"tng Ac.02.24 gts arlcl confi,ning the rights under register sale deed bearing document No.1369/2015, dated

11.03.2015 in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts in Sy.NO.g0/AA and Ac.2-04 gts in respect of Sy.No.SlrzAA, total admeasuring of Ac.2- 24 gts., situated at Bulkapur Village, Shankarpalll. Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, which is only a part of the schedule property. Accordingly, plaintiffs filed I.A. No. 1 of 201g for recording the settlement arrived between the parties in respect of relinquishment of rights in favour of the petitioners herein. However,. application was filed under order XXII Rule 6 of CpC mistakenly, instead of under order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC, therefore, the hriar court dismissed the same rr, LNA,J, CRP No.l043 of2023 3 vide order dated 01.11.2022. Aggrieved by the same, this civil Revision PeLition is fi]ed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that mentioning of wrong provision cannot be ground for dismissing any application_ He further contended that, it is settled principle that court should entertain an application even though wrong provision is mentioned and as such trial court has failed to exercise discretion vested in it. Therefore prayed to allow the CRP by setting aside the impugned order dated 01.77.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner represented that leave may be granted to the petitioner to file fresh application for recording the settlement arrived between the parties.

7. A perusal of the record would disclose that during pendency of the suit, a settlement has been arrived between the plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 1 to 3, in respect of part of the suit schedule property and as per which respondent Nos. 1 to 3 agreed to relinquish their rights in respect of land admeasuring Ac.0-20 gts in Sy.NO.g0/AA and Ac.2-04 gts in respect of Sy.No.81/AA, total admeasuring of Ac.2_24 gts. Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 201,8 vr.as filed to record the terms of t \ settlemen! however, the application was filed under Order XXII Rule 6 of CPC instead of Order XXIII Rule 3 of CpC. Hence, the trial court dismissed the same vide order dated 01.11.2022, on the ground that I,NA,J CRP No.1043 of2023 ,l t 4 recording the terms of compromise under Order XXII Rule 6 of CPC is not maintainable. It is well settled principle that an application cannot be dismissed on the sole ground of non-mention of correct provision of law. In the present case the plaintiff filed an application to record settlement, therefore intention of the parties is clear, however, the kial court dismissed on the sole ground of non-mention of correct provision, which in considered opinion is erroneous, therefore unsustainable

8. In view of the above discussion, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioners herein to file a fresh appropriate application for recording settlement of compromise arrived between petitioners and respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and on filing of such an application, the trial court shall dispose of the same on its own merits.

9. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs Pending miscellaneous applications if an-y sha11 stand closed. SD/. A.JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII I secrl)ir'6trrcen l To,

1. The Senior Civil Judge, Chevella, R.R. District. 2 One CC to SRl. KAMALAKARA RAO BATHINA Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. A USHI REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. One spare coPY /or*rrrt HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 r, ) os rr ( !) 1,ll ). 11 SEP zlfr , o,:. ORDER CRP.No.1043 of 2023 b /4 '/ /2 t 4 DISPOSING OF THE CRP I I I i i I ; I I I I i I t i ) ! t I I t ! I I i t i . i I I