The High Court · 2025

Sri. Narayanalal Chowdarv S/o. Deepa Ramji Chowdari. Aged about 58 years. occ Business cnowoary ano c[i, RA;'fi"iN;:6 Gandimarsamma, Uommara pochampaily. Ivledchal d,stri&-SObOa5. Prakash Chowdarv, S/o. Asir fu:[ii:dtt7J'EiJiii,i"di"l,[,lo3|3,y,o,#;,1&:%ffi",. j_'..r,?1ll;,3ji&: AND ...Petitioners *?,tf ffi i,.5 Eii";,f8i,f, Y'?Sii "YBi,,nPo',ltB3El. c h u rch G a n il a p u r Viil a n s e, 3::rllJ3:j8:Ei#Efro,o."." Sociar Service Society, saroijini, Devi Road, ...Respondents IANO:1O F 2023 Petition uncier Section 151 CPC prayrng that in the ( rtumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour ray be pleased to grant interim injunction against the respondents restraining t rom from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit schedule property. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. G Ravi represented Advocate. Mohan, learn rcl Senior Counsel Sri Naresh Kumar Gorage, Counsel for the Respondents: Tunga Mahesh Kumar The Court made the following: ORDER -t THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO crvtL REVISION PETITION No.166l of 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri G. Ravi Mohan, learned Senior Counsel representing Sri Naresh Kumar Gorige, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri runga Mahesh Kumar, learned counsel for respondents. perused the materia_l on record.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court failed to look into the certilied copies of the documents filed along with the suit and a finding is given to the fact that no documents are filed and also failed to appreciate that petitioners were put in possession of the schedule property by their vendor who delivered the same to them as per the title deed. The learned trial Court has erroneously passed an order on presumptions arrd assumptions on imaginar5r grounds without discussing the facts available on record. If two persons claims to be in possession of the vacant site, one who is able to establish the title thereto will be \ \ 2 -- --,. ..i \ -- considered tc, 5g i. possession, as against the person who is not able to establish the title and thert: cre, prayed to set aside the order passed in I.A.No.938 c,f 2018 in O.S.No.193 of 2018, dated 08.03.2019 on the flle of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Medchi I

3. Learned counsel for the respondentsrdefendants submits that the learned trial Court hzr s properly appreciated the facts of the case and disrtissed the application in I.A.No.938 of 2018 in O.S.No.1! lt of 2018, dated 08.03.2O19, which..tas carried by the p,.rrrioners in C.M.A.No.24 of 2022 before the learned II r\dditional District Judge, Mecha-l - Malkajgiri District i t Medchal and the salne was dismissed vide orr lcr dated

20.r0.2022.

4. During the course of arguments this }lurt has requested the learned counsel for responden s; to take instructions from the parties as schedule prop( rrv shown therein is vacant site i.e., open Iand to an r,xtent of Ac.O- 1 I gr-intas a-long rvith two rooms in , i. apidated condition situated in Sy.No.225 at Cagillapur r Lt lage and J the Grampalchayath, Dundigat-Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medcha,l District. Learned counsel for respondents, on instructions, states that the present Civil Revision Petition may be disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo and, further requested to direct the learned trial Court to dispose the suit within a timeframe. 5. Petitioners who were the plaintiffs in O.S.No.193 of 2018 have hled the suit for perpetual injunction against the respondents not to interfere with the plaint schedule property. Along with the said suit they a_lso moved an interlocutory application i.e., I.A.No.93g of 201g for grant of temporar5r injunction. On contest, the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 0g.O3.2019. On perusal of the order in I.A.No.938 oi 2018 in O.S.No.i93 of 20lg dated 08.03.2019, it is observed that the learned trial Court has not marked the documents fited by the parties. Petitioners aggrieved by the order and decree in I.A,No.938 of 2018 in O.S.No. 193 of 2Ot8 dated 08.03.2019 carried the matter in appeal in C.M.A.No.24 \ t / 4 of 2022 belore the II Additional District Judry,, Medchal- Malkajgiri District, which also came to be dir;rniss:ed vide order dated 2',O.10.2022.

6. The pliiint schedule property is arl open land admeasuring Ac.0-11 guntas along with tuc rooms in dilapidated condition with specific bour:daries in Sy.No.225. Both the parties are claimi;- c the said property and there is no point in remanding 1. r,' matter at this stage as the suit hled by the petitioners. 1;laintiifs is of the year 2Cr 1 8.

7. Since the learned counsel for the resp:rdents has conceded that the parties shall maintain si L us quo in respect of the plaint schedule property for' '..'hich the learned Senior Counsel has acceded.

8. In view of the same, this Civil Revisiol t)etition is disposed of as, under: (i) The parties to the suit i.e., O.S.No. 193 ol ltOt8 shall maintain statrrs-quo as on the date of hling ol the suit in respect of the plaint scheduie property. .) (ii) The learned trial Court shall dispose of O.S.No.193 of 2018 within a period of six (06) months by giving opportunity to the parties thereon. 9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

10. Interim order and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed SD/. K.AMMAJI DEPUTY REGISTRAR & //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 4 The Prl Junior Civil Judge at Medchal. One CC to Sri. Naresh Kumar Gorige, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri. Tunga Mahesh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies. YJR/PSL D HIGH COURT DATED:2310912025 ORDER CRP.No.1661 of 2023 ).( a) t) 't j * DT: :::- ?-m5 ,- ),i .._'i 't ' .ii l. ,,// '-- ) DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PEI'ITION. b 11 ",\ \0