The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl' KAMALAKARA RAO BATHINA Counsel for the Respondent : SRI MANDA ADAM The Court made the following: ORDER It THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY Civil Revisio n Petition No.1540 0F 2024 ORDER: . This Civil Revision petition is filed assarling the order, dated, O2.O4.2O24, passed by the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate M6dchat Malkajgiri District in I.A.No.22 of 2024 in O.S.No.657 of 2023.

2. Heard Sri B. Kamalakar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manda Adam, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. Th e revtslon petitioner is defendant and the respondent herein is plaintiff in the suit

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendalt submitted that the respondent/plaintiff herein filed a suit ulde o.S.No.657 0f 2023 0n the file of IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal_Malkajgiri District against the defendalt/petitioner herein seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant fro{interfering with his open land bearing H.No.15-1_ 6 (Part) total admeasuring 1,O4g.B Sq.yards or 876.79 2 Sq.Mts (Out of 46O0.0Sq.Yards) 1n Sy.No.136lP, situated at Doolapally Village, Kompally Municipality, Dundigal-Gandimaisamma Mandal, Medchal- Malkajgiri District (herein after referred as suit schedule propert5r). It is further submitted that the vendor of the respondent/plaintiff has filed another suit uide O.S.No.584 of 2027 on the file of Principle Junior Civil Judge, Mechal-Malkajgiri District for perpetual injunction in respect of land admeasuring Ac.2.OO gts., in Sy.No.136/Part situated at Dhoolapa-lly village against Sri Begari @ Gaddam Yadaiah. The learned counsel further submitted that the patemal uncle of the defendant/petitioner herein narnely D.Shankar Goud, was issued ORC certificate in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 10. i5 gts., 1n Sy.No. 136 of Dhoolapally Village and his narne was a-lso mutated in the revenue records and that in the said suit, an application was filed to implead D.Shankar Goud as defendant and the sarne ls pending. 3

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the subject property also forms part of Sy.No.136 situated at Doolapally Village, Kompaly Municipality. Therefore, certified. copy of plaint in O.S.No.584 of 2027 and counter aflidavit filed in I.A.No. 1 196 of 2022 rn O.S.No.584 of 2O2l are relevant documents for proper adjudication of the matter. Since the subject property in"the present suit forms part of Sy.No. 136 which is.also subject matter of O.S.No.5g4 of 2021 , the petitioner herein frled I.A.No.22 of 2024 in O.S.No.657 of 2023 to receive documents in the present suit for proper adjudication of the matter.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the trial Court has dismissed the said application only on the ground that the petitioner tailed to explain the relevancy of the said documents to the present suit and thus, dismissed the application. It is further contended that in the afhdavit filed in support of I.A.No.22 of 2024, it is clearly mentioned that these documents are relevant for proper \ 4 adjudication of the matter, but it was not mentioned elaborately as to how they are relevant to the said suit. In fact in para Nos.13, 14 and 15 of the written statement fited by the respondent/plaintiff, it is elaborately mentioned about hling of O-S.No.584 of 2O2l by the vendor of the plaintiff/respondent herein. The subject property in O.S.No.584 of 2021 and the subject property in the present suit forms part of the suit' schedule propert5r. Therefore, the order dated O2.O4.2024 in I.A.No.22 of 2024 in O.S.No.657 of 2023 is liable to be set aside

7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent contended that no reasons were mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.22 of 2024 in O.S.No.657 of 2023 to receive the documents and also about the relevancy of the said documents and as to how they are crucial and necessar5/ for adjudication of the present suit. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly dismissed I.A.No.22 of 2024 in O.S.No.657 of 2o23.Though in para Nos.14, 15 and 16 in the written 5 statement filed by the petitioner, it is mentioned about filing of O.S.No.584 of 2021 by the vendor of the plaintiff therein and that subject property in the present suit also forms part of the subject property in O.S.No.584 of 2021 , it is not elaborately mentioned as to how the documents are relevant and necessaqr for adjudication of the matter. Therefore, learned counsel prays this Court to disiniss the Civil Revision Petition.

8. Taking into consideration the fact that the documents, which are being sought to be placed on record in O.S.No.657 of 2023, are certihed copies of I I plaint in O.S.No.584 of 2O2l and the counter affidavit filed by the respondents in I.A.No.1196 of 2022 in O.S.No.584 of 2O2I, where subject property of the said suit forms part of the present suit schedule property and the application hled by the paternal uncle of the petitioner to implead himself as party to the suit in O.S.No.584 of 2021, who was issued ORC certificate in respect of land admeasuring Ac. 10.15 gts., in 6 Sy.No. 136 of Dhoolapally Village, the same can be taken on record.

9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed settirrg aside the impugned order, dated O2.O4.2O24 and consequently I.A.No.22 of 2024 in O.S.No.657 of 2023 stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, midtelaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// D/. M.OSMAN ALI BAIG SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal Malkajgiri district at Medchal 2 One CC to SRI KAMALAKARA RAO BATHINA Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. MANDA ADAtvl Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies qA- TUgh n HIGH COURT DATED:05/03/2025 s I ttt SlaI6 $o 21IUEM c ^ /Jio t,J ,t I ORDER CRP.No.1540 ot 2O24 ALLOWING THE C.R.P. !t- 5

2.) I