The High Court · 2025

S. Srinivasulu, S/o. Late Sambaiah' Agqd 62 years' R/o Plot No 200' Road ilo-a, ii*r,ti'colony, Mahendra Hills' Secunderabad . . . Petitioner / Respondent No 1 / Respondent No 1 AND 1. G. Ananthalakshmi, Wo. G Krishna, Ag^ed about 65 Years' Occ House Wife' ' ilr; H.N; 1 1-1 402-408'Mylaragadda,Secunderabad 2. G. Krishna, S/o tVlunu Swamy, fged about 73 years' Occ Retd ' R/o' - il No il-r-,i02 408,ltilylaragadd'a, Secunderabad ...Respondents / Petitioners / Petitioners

3. G. Srrramulu, (Since died) 4 G. Natarat. S/o late G. Srrramulu Aged about 37 years' R/o H No''1 1-1-402-

408. MYlaiagadda Secunderabad

5. G. Satyanarayana, S/o. late G' Sriramulu Aged about 37 years' R/o H No 1'1- - I -qOZ qOA, Mylaragadda,'secunderabad 6. G. Kanaka Durga' Wo late G' Sriramulu Aged about 36 years' R/6. H No 11- - I qOZqOA. Mylaragadda, Secunderabad I R4 to RO are rrot necessary parties to this petition as the-y we^re.a.lready ex *;.1;"'i;"";i,,i o s-135206dt ino in ttre appeal CCCA 75 ot 2014 and also ["'i.riJt'ii t"rqnt in tn. revision by the Revision Petitioners ] PetitronunderSectronl5lCPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to vacate the interrm order dated: 13 04.2023 passed in lA No 2 of 2023 in CRP No.1200 of 2023 staying all further proceedings in EP No. 157 of 2023 in O.S.No.135 of 2006 and consequently initiate suo-mote steps against the Petitioners U/S 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act in the interest of Revision justice. Counsel for the Petitioner Counsel for the ResPondent No 'l Sri Bankatlal Mandhani Sri D Srinivas Prasad clvl L REVI SION PETITION NO: 1651 0F 2023 Petitionundersectionll5ofCPCagainsttheorderdatedll-04-2023made inE.AS.R.No4422of2023inEPNo'157of2023inOSNo135of2006onthefile oftheCourtofthelAdditionalChiefJudge,CityCivilCourtatSecunderabad. --ll-g,-ll,l Between: ?lrifJalirfr;,fJ:eu: utpr',l R , about 73 vears' occ Pvt ' ' 8,"*fil,tli ?\'2i>\"pu;,l,ii?3r,tJ5:3i1'Aeoed 4. G. Sri Ramulu (Died per LRs/JDRs 4' 5' 6) (the revision petitioners 1 to 3 ?!upr,,f,fi,g,:J[g:s::,Asoed "ifilr^il?,f!,1ff about 57 vears' occ Pvt ' R/o about 54 vears' occ Pvt ' above) ...Petitioners / Judgment Debtors / Defendants AND '1 S. Srinivasulu, S/o Late Sambaiah''Age! 6j Vears' Occ Business' R/o. G-3' Naviva Residen"y, r i-r.[ r-toor. Plot No:43, Ro'ad No.+. Trimuthi colony. Itiiii6loo Hiltt' Secunderabad ...Respondent / Decree Holder / Plaintiff 2. G. Ananthalakshml' Wo G Krishna' Aq^ed about 65 Years' Occ House Wife' ' HIJ t "i.it"r'1-t'toztoa'Mvlarasadda' sec'bad 73 vears' occ Retd ' R/o 3 .[liil,';8!".Ud,''ilit]fU]df,:"S"1t't"# ...Respondents / Judgment Debtors / Defendants IANO:1OF 2023 PetitionunderSectionl5lCPCprayingthatintheCircumstancesstatedin the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings EP No 157 of 2023 ' in O S No 135 of 2006' on the fire of the court of the r Addr. chief Judge at sec'bad of this Hon'bre court pending disposal of the CRP Counsel for the Petitioners Counsel for the ResPondent No 1 Counsel for the Respondent No' 2 & 3 The Court made the following Common Order : : i Sri K Buchi Babu Sri D Srinivas Prasad Sri Bankatlal Mandhani THE HONO URABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY J EVISION PETITION Nos. 12OO AND 1651 of2023 CTYIL R COMM ON ORDER: Since the issuc in these two Revision Petitions is one and the same, they are being decided by this Common Order'

2. Heard Mr. Bankatlal Mandhani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Srinivas Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. civil Revision Petition No.12OO of 2023 is hled assailing the docket order dated 11.O4.2023, in E'A'S'R'No'4429 of 2023 in E.P.No. l57 of 2023 in O.S.No.135 of 20O6, on the hle of the I Addl' ChiefJudge,Citl.CivilCourtatSecunderabad.Similarly,Civil Revision Petition No.i651 of 2023 is also filed assailing the docket order dated 11.O4.2023 in E.A.S.R'No'4422 of 2023, in E'P'No'157 of 2O23,arisingofthesamesuiti.e'O'S'No'135of2006'onthefileof the I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad' 4 Forconvenience,thefactsinCivilRevisionPetitionNo.l2ooof 2023 xe discussed herein under'

5. The u,hole issue germinates from a civil suit that was filed way back in the year 2006 i.e. O.S.No'135 of 2006 by the respondent herein for declaration of title with delivery of possession, along with mesne prolits and damages. After a prolonged litigation, the suit was finatly decreed in favour of the respondent herein by the Trial court urde judgment arrd decree dated 2g.O4.2O14. The matter was thereafter subjected to challenge before the High Court by the petitioners herein uid.e city civil court Appeal No. 17 0f 20 14 which too got dismissed on O4.O1.2O23. Subsequently, the decree holder preferred execution proceedings before the I Addl. chief Judge, city cinil court, Secunderabad uid,e E.p.No. 157 0f 2023. In the said petition' an application was filed for graat of mesne profits which was a.llowed and the judgment debtor was directed to pay Rs. IO,OOO/_ per month from the date of the suit for illegal use and occupation of the suit schedule property. In the said order, a warra-nt for delivery of possession was also issued on 04.04.2023. However, the bailiff could execute the warrant on 06.04.2023 due to illegal resistance put by the petitioners herein; the report of which was submitted by the bailiff to the concerned Court. 6' Pending the execution proceedings and issuance of warrant of possession' the judgment debtor i.e. the petitioners herein have filed a petition under Section 47 of Civil procedure Code, 19Og (for short, the CPC) raising an objection so far as the jurisdiction of the Ciyil Court to the dispute also the jurisdiction of the Court in executing the decree. 7, As per the contention of the petitioners in the said aPplication under Sectio n 47 of CPC, they claim to have entered into the premises arrd are occupying the same in the capacity of tenants and since it was a landlord tenant dispute, the Civil suit was not the proper remedy for the decree holder and in terms of the provisions of the Telangana (Lease, Rent and Eviction) control Act, 1960, a tenant cal be evicted onlyinaccordance\^,ithSections12and13oftheRentControlAct anditisonlytheauthorityundertheRentControlActortheRent control court which has the jurisdiction to pass orders of eviction. Further, the contention of the petitioners was that the entire suit proceedings and the subsequent proceedings drawn thereafter are all nullity and uoid ab initio without jurisdiction' S.InitiallywhenthesaidapplicationwasfiledunderSection4Tof CPC the Execution Court refused to entertain the same and returned tothepetitionersholdingittobenotmaintainable.Thenthe petitioners again resubmitted the same and made ar out of order mentioning for urgently taking up the matter as the Execution Court hadalreadyissuedwarrantofdeliveryofpossessionandprayedfor stay of the execution proceedings in the light of the said objections. The said application was taken up at the S.R. stage uide E.A.S.R.No.4422 of 2023. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length, the impugned order was passed rejecting the said application holding it to be un-sustainable.

9. It is this rejection of the said application under Section 47 of CPC which led to the filing of the instant Revision Petition

10. While challenging the impugned order, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that; firstly as regards the manner in which the objection was decided by the Execution Court inasmuch as according to the petitioners upon an application under Section 47 of CPC being filed in an execution proceedings it is incumbent for the Court to have registered the said application as an Interlocutory Application and only upon hearing the parties it ought to be decided on merit. However, in the instant case without registering the same, the application stood rejected at the S.R. stage itself which therefore was not sustainable and the same deserves to be set aside. Secondly, once when a lega1 objection is being raised by either of the pa-rties, there was no reason or occasion for the Execution Court to have not accepted the said objection; neither could it have been decided at the threshold itself without even being numbered as an Interlocutory Application.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since it was a legal objection which otherwise touches the very maintainability of the proceedings before the Civil Court, both in respect of the authorit5r as also in respect of the jurisdiction, such an objection could be raised at any stage of the proceedings including the execution stage, and as such, these objections cannot be simply brushed aside or rejected as a matter of routine at the S.R. stage

12. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that thev were not given an effective opportunity o! hearing on the said objection and the Execution Court in a hasty manner has taken up the application filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of CPC and rejected the said same.

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions heavily relied upon the following decisions. I Kiran Singh and others vs. Paswan and othersl ii. D. Satyanarayana Rao vs. Vasudev Asrani and anotherz lll. Sarqran Kumar and another vs. Madan Lal Agganrals 'AtR 19sq supR€wtE couRT 340 ' zoor (l) alo sro ' arR zoo3 supRruE couRT 147r 14' Per contra, the leamed counsel for the respondent in the course of his arguments justified the impugned order contending that the petition under Section 4z of cpc fired by the petitioners is nothing but with a mala fide intention of protracting the proceedings as far as possible so that the petitioners can illegarly retain and occupy the suit schedule premises. It was contended that the time when the objection under Section 4z of cpc was raised and the date on which the interim orders have been obtained from the High court are all crucial to justift the aforesaid contention of mala fide intention. of the petitioners. l5' According to the rearned counser for the respondent once when o'S'No.135 of 20o6 was decided in favour of the plaintiff and which stood confirmed up till the stage of Hon,ble Supreme Court, there was nothing further left for the petitioners to contest. Further, suppressing the fact that the S.L.p. they had preferred before the Hon,ble Supreme Court has also got dismissed and in the process the decree getting confirmed, the petitioners have pressed the High Court in respect of the threat of eviction a,d have obtained an ex-parte stay by virtue of which they are still in illegal possession of the suit premises.

16. It was also the contention of the learned .or{r""1 for the respondent that the original suit was one which was filed in the year

2006. ln the decree, the first appeal and second appeat, and thereafter in the proceedings before the Hon'lcle Supreme Court the petitioners have never projected themselves to be in occupation of the said premises as tenants. It was for the hrst time after almost two decades oftheproceedingsu.hichwereinitiallyvitiatedintheyear20o6that the petitioners have novi' raised an objection under Section 47 of CPC highlighting the fact that they are in occupation of the premises as tenants. Therefore, it was contended that the civil court does not have the jurisdiction to enrertain such a claim petition and the proceedings drawn right from the institution of the suit till the S.L.P. having been dismissedbeforeHon,lcleSupremeCourtgetsvitiatedforwantof jurisdiction and becomes null and void.

17. According to the learned counsel for the respondent' the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners now in the objection under Section 47 of CPC cannot be accepted, nor is it sustainable in the teeth of the specific plea that they had taken at the first instance when the written Statement was l-rled in o.s.No. 135 0f 2OO6 and the pleadings that they had raised finally at the S.L.P. stage before the Honble Supreme court. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the petitioners in fact have taken the defence before the civil court, the l+igh court and also before the Hon'ble Supreme court that they were the owners of the suit schedule Pate I of 15 property having titre over the same and there was also a plea of the title having been perfected by way of adverse possession without even being referred of ha,ring occupied the premises as tenants, or that there being a randlord - tenant rerationship between the decree holder and jtrdgment debtor. Therefore, such a plea cannot be permitted to be raised now and the petitioners a-lso have never accepted or admitted being a tenalt in the said premises. 18' Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his contentions relied upon the following decisions. I l1 iii. iv. v. Shivaji Balaram Haibatti vs. Avinash Maruthi pawara Pradeep Mehra vs. Harijivan J. Jethwa (Since deceased thr. LRs.f & Ots.s Brakewel Automotive Components (India) private Limited vs. P.R. Selvam Alagappane Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and othersz Asma Lateefand another vs. Shabbir Ahmad and otherss

19. Having heard the con tentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, particularly taking into consideration the checkered history of series of litigations and orders passed thereon, (2018) 1.1 Supreme Court Cases 652 (2023) SCC Onrine SC 139S (2017) 5 Supreme Court Cases 371 (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 418 2024 (1)ALD 234 (SC) 5 6 3 d. j the original suit in the present dispute i'e' O'S'No'135 of 2006 being filed was decreed in favour of the respondent herein on 28O4'2O14' the City Civil Court Appeal No.17 of 2Ol4 prefened by the petitioners herein also got dismissed on O4'O l '2023 and rejection of the same led to Iiling of the S.L.I'-(C) No.7a52 of 2023 and the said S'L'P' was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on l3'O4'2O23' Right from the Civil Court, up till the Hon'ble Supreme Court' the matter was pending consideration at various Ievels and stages for almost a period of seventeen years. A11 along, the stand of the petitioners was that they are the o\f,'ners of the said property and they had perfected the title by way of adverse possession. In between, the respondent had hled an execution petition i. e' E.P.No. 157 of 2023 and a warrant of possession was a-lso issued on O4.O4.2O23. However, since the petitioners have resisted, the bailiff could not take delivery of possession; the report of which was also furnished to the concerned Court' 2c,. In the teeth of the aforesaid factual matrix, the points for consideration no'v\r are two-fold, viz., af Whether the impugned order gets vitiated since it has been ordered at the S.R. stage? bt Whether the Execution Court was justihed ln rejecting the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 47 of CPC? Both these points, in the opinion of this Court, are too hyper technical an issue when we look at the proceedings as a whole

21. As regards the rejection of the petition under Section 47 of CPC at the S.R. stage, the wordings of the Execution Court while deciding the objections so raised is self-explanatory by itself. It is clearly revealed that the petitioners had at the first instance presented the said objection which was refused by the Trial Court. The petitioners thereafter resubmitted the said petition under Section 47 of CPC and at the same time made an out of turn hearing of the matter on urgent basis. It was this out of turn mentioning before the Court which led the hearing to commence and the impugned order getting passed.

22. In the given factual backdrop, since the Execution Court had already heard the matter so far as its maintainability is concerned, it went on to decide the same continuously and in the process, the registration of the said petition filed under Section 47 of CPC could not be carried out and the impugned order was passed. But the fact remains that the Court had heard the Counsel for the petitioners elaborately and dealt with all the objections that were raised and finally found no merits on the said objection. In the said circumstances, if the order has been passed at the S. R. stage, the same cannot be found to be erroneous or bad in law. 2g. As regards the objection under Section 47 of CPC can be raised at any stage of the proceedings including the execution stage' this Court has no hesitation in accepting the said principle' However' the petitioners contradtctory stand raises serious concerns about the integrity of their legal arguments and the proper administration of justice. Not oniy does it appear to be a deliberate attempt to protract the proceedings, but it also undermines the fundamental principle that parties shoulcl present all available defense comprehensively at the earliest opportunity The fact that this new stance emerges after seventeen years of litigation and particularly after the matter has been adjudicated at varlous levels including the Hon'ble Supreme Court' strongly suggests a tactica'l maneuver rather than a genuine legal position. The timing and nature of this contradictory stand becomes even more questionable when considering that the petitioners had multiple opportun ities to raise this issue during the original trial' subsequent appeals, and most notably in their recent S L P' preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court' This pattern of behavior shows a calculated strate$/ to introduce new elements into the case solely for the purpose of clelaying its resolution' which goes against the principles of judicial efficiency ard the spirit of justice'

24.Thesaidcontradictorystandnowbeingraisedbythepettttoners cannot be said to i)e a ground which the petitioners were not aware of or they have recently come to know of such a stand and such a relationship with that of the decree holder i.e. respondent herein. It is particularly difficult to accept the petitioners assertion that they failed to raise this ground earlier due to ignorance or lack of knowledge and the extensive duration of these proceedings. This stand now raised by the petitioners under Section 47 of CPC clearly reflects a calculated stratery aimed at protracting the proceedings on some count or the other, rather than a genuine lega-l position emerging from newly discovered facts or circumstances. The petitioners failure to provide any satisfactory explanation for their delayed introduction of this plea, particularly when they had ample opportunity to raise it during their recent S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court severely undermines their credibility and forces this Court to draw al adverse inference regarding their intentions. Their conduct appears to be a deliberate attempt to introduce new elements into the case at this belated stage which is particularly concerning given their sophisticated understanding of legal proceedings as shown by their previous litigation history.

25. Another aspect which needs to be considered at this juncture is that in the teeth of the pleadings that the petitioners have raised in their Written Statement at the first instance and the stand now being taken in the petition filed under Section 47 of CPC, both cannot go simultaneously under any circumstances. A person cannot claim title over the property or claim ownership over the said Property on one hand and at the s.rrne time project himself as the tenant of the suit schedule property.

26. As regards thc judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court is of the firm view- that the manner in vvhich the present disputc has travelled from the year 2006 onwards and after seventeen long .years of battle after the initial litigation having been concluded up till the stage of Hon'ble Supreme Court,. now for the lirst time, the petitioners cannot be permitted to raise altogether fresh ground ald contention totaliy contrary to their pieadings and defence till nou,- The said ground does not seem to have too much of force inasmuch as the petitioners could either have been the or,r'ners of the propertv or the tenants on the said portion of land. However, it is pertinent to note that the petitioners initially raised grounds u'hich were systematically dismissed from the Trial Court up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Nou', after seventeen years, the petitioners have strategicall-y introduced ne."r' grounds attempting to establish both tenant and orvner relationship w'hich appears to be a calculated effort to extend their possession and prolong the proceedings for several more years so as to continue enjoying the possession of the suit schedule propcrry'-. This conduct itself clearly illustrates a sheer abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the judgments which have been relied upon can be distinguishable on facts itself and the same cannot be applied in a straight jacket formula to the facts of the present case'

27. Further, the petitioners have miserably failed to give a plausible explanation as to what prevented them in not taking this ground on aI earlier occasion; neither is their case that the said ground was because of certain compelling situations that they faced ' In the absence of all these, the decision of the Execution court cannot be found fault with. As a consequence, this Court is of the opiriion that the Execution court has not committed any error while rejecting the petition lrled by the petitioners herein under Section 47 of CPC' 2A. As al outcome of the discussions made in the preceding paragraphs, this Court has got no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion so far as the first point for .consideration "whether the impugrred order gets vitiated since it has been ordered at the S' R' stage", this court is of the considered opinion that in the compelling circumstances at which the petitioners insisted for taking up the matter even before the registration upon arr out of order mentioning being made by the petitioners, it carnot be said that the impugned order would get vitiated on the ground of it being ordered at the S'R' stage. Similarly, as regards the second point for consideration ( "whether the Execution court was justihed in rejecting the petitton flledunderSection4TofCPC',,inthelightofthediscussionsmadein the preceding paragraph s and upon hearing the contentions on either side,thisCourtisoftheconsideredopinionthattheExecutionCourt was in fact justified u,hile rejecting the petition filed under Section 47 of cpc. The civil Revision Petitions thus fail and are accordingly dismissed. No costs.

29. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// ./ Sd/- MOHD. ISMAIL ASSTSTANT neCrsin'an I \] SECTION OFFICER 1 4 5 The I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad One CC to Sri Bankatlal lrllandhani, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri D Srinivas Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri K Buchr Babu, Advocate tOpUCl Two CD Copies Vtugh s HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 e o 1t\ESTAI€ o c -l { t 2 4 rtB 2[?5 t a E9rt.1C aF-t COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.1200 & 1651 of 2023 DISMISSING BOTH THE CRPs oJ4