The High Court · 2025

6. Vangeti Padma, W/o. Srinath, agedss years, Occ house-hold, C/o.Vangati Pandurangam, near Durgeswara swamy temple, Vanngati Bazat, Waraigal.

7. Gourishetti Devi, W/o. Knnaaiah, aged 52 years. Occ House-Hold. R/o. Hanamkonda Town and Mandal,W-rangal'District.

8. Kodakandla Jyothi, Wo.Chalapathi, aged 49 years, Occ House-Hotd R/o Hanamkonda Town and Mandal, Warangal District,

9. Karfreti Sumathi, Wo. Late Surender, R/o.Near Saraswathi Shishumandir Opposite lane, Vijaya Talkies Road, Hanumkonda, Warangal District. 'l0.Yamsani Sujatha, D/o.late Giridhar, aged4d years. Occ not known. R/o. Rana Siddiq Hospital, c/o- Madishetti Uppalaiah near Alankar Theater. Hanumkonda Town and lvlandal_ 1 1 . Musioatla Tirupathi Reddv, S/o Adi Reddy' aged- 39 vears' Occ Agriculture R/o H.N0 1-e Desapalli iii;I;'i;iv;;;i'vania tvtanital' Karimnatar District' presently at New mrllennillit'iiidiistn"oL limmitt'nt" T and M Karimnagar District. ( Respondent Nos- 3 to 1 1 are not necessary parties) ...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents / Defendants IA NO: 10F 2022 pending the disposal of the CRP Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in suppori of tne petitibn'!q"^1iSn Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in b S flO tf f oi zOzO on the file of the honble Senior irfi,irrl-oad Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI' K' MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No'1: SRI K' PRADEEP REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No'2 : Sri K' Buchi Babu The Court made the following ORDER: l I ! t i THE HONOURABLE DT. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CM REVISION PETITION No.l224 of 2022 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner - defendant No.l aggrieved by the order dated02.03.2022 in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in O.S.No.1l1 of 2020 passed by the leamed Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad.

2. The facts of the case leading to hling of this CRP are that the respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for partition and separate possession of schedule A, B and C properties vide O.S.No.lll of 2020. On receipt of summons, the defendant No.l filed an application vide I.A.No.4 of 2020 under Section 11 of CPC to dismiss the suit as barred being hit by the principle of res judicara. The said petition was dismissed by the trial court. Aggrieved by which, the present revision is filed by the defendant No.l.

3. Heard Sri K.Mohan, leamed counsel for the petitioner - defendant No. I and Sri K.Pradeep Reddy, leamed counsel for the respondents I and 2 plaintiffs.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No.l plaintiff No.l earlier f,rled a suit for partition and separate possession vide O.S.No.l3 of 2010 against the petitioner herein - defendant No.l on the file of t' 2 Dr.GRR, J crp_1224-2022 i the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar on the same subject matter with regard to the same schedule properties. After full trial, the said suit was dismissed on 13.06.2017. Aggrieved by which, the respondent No.1 - plaintiff No.l filedA.S.No.862 of 2017. TherespondentNo. I -plaintiffNo.l withdrew the appeal without obtaining any leave and the appeal was dismissed on

28.11.2019. The subject matter in O.S.Nos.13 of 2010 and 1l I of 2020 was one and the same. The respondent No.l ptaintiff No.l suppressed filing of the earlier suit and of the appeal before the High Court and fited O.S.No.1 I I of 2020 with a malafide intention. The suit was barred under the principle of res judicata. The trial court erred in dismissing the application on a misconstrued premise that the High Court granted leave to file a fresh suit, which was patently erroneous. The order passed by the High Court would not expressly mention granting of any permission. The trial court ought not to have assumed deemed permission and dismissed the application of the petitioner. The trial court failed to look into the order passed by the High Court or the purported letter of withdrawal and prayed to set aside the order passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in O.S.No.11l of 2020 dated 02.03.2022.

5. Leamed counsel for the respondents - plaintiffs on the other hand contended that the principles ofres judicata are not applicable to the present case, as the substantial question of law involved in the suit was not yet decided I ;*,,ii * \ I - Dr.cR& J cfp_1224 2022 in the previous suit. The suit was dismissed on technicar reason only and the 3 appeal was dismissed as not pressed by obtaining permission of the Appelrate court for filing fresh suit. The Appelrate court permitted to withdraw the suit. once the suit was permitted to be withdrawn, all the proceedings including the judgment passed by the trial court were wiped out. The judgment given in a suit, which was permitted to be withdrawn with a riberty to file a fresh suit, would not constitute res judicata in the subsequent suit. The trial court on considering all the above aspects, passed the order dismissing the petition fired by the petitioner - defendant No.r. No interference was required by this court to set aside the said order and prayed to dismiss the CRp.

6. Perused the record 7 . The respondent No. I in this cRp / praintiff No. l in o.S.No.l rr of 2020 earlier filed o-S.No.l3 of 2010 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar seeking the relief of partition and separate possession against the petitioner herein seeking half share in the suit sbhedule properties. The suit schedule properties were shown as: A: Sri Venkareshwara Oil Mill along with machinery and building and open land admeasuring 1650 square yards approximately along with house bearing No'4-4-59 situated at Jammikunta village and Mandal, Karimnagar District B: The house bearing No.5-1054 admeasuring 240 square yards having two portions sifirated at Jammikunta village and Mandal, Karimnagar Dishict. 4 Dr.GRR, J ctp_1224 2022 C: The land situated behind Sri Venkateshwara Oit Mill admeasuring 1458 square yards and open land situated at Jammikunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District. All the above properties were stated to be adjacent to each other.

8. In the present suit in O.S.No. lll of 2020, the respondent No.1 along with his wife as plaintiffs I and 2 filed the above suit against the petitioner herein and against his mother, sisters and purchaser of some of the "B" schedule property, seeking half share in the suit schedule A, B and C properties and to cancel the registered sale deed bearing document No.106 of 2014 dated

10.01.2014 executed by defendant No.l in favor of defendant No.10 with regard to part of "8" schedule property. Suit schedule "A" property was shown as Sri Venkateshwara Oil Mill along with Machinery and building and open land of about 1650 square yards situated at Jammikunta Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District, suit schedule "B" property was shown as Sri Venkateshwara Oil Mill along with tin sheds and open land of about 1458 square yards and suit schedule "C" properry was shown as 240 square yards of house bearing No.5-l-54 consisting of two portions situated at Padmasali Street, Jammikunta Village & Mandal, Karimnagar District.

9. Thus, the suit schedule properties in both the suits are one and same and the plaintiff was claiming half share in the above properties. O.S.No.l3 of 2010 was filed by the respondent No.f -blaintiff No.l alone against the defendant 5 Dr.GR& J crp_1224]022 No.l. In the present case, he also included his wife as plaintiff No.2 and his mother and sisters and purchaser of part of the ,,B,, schedule property. O.S.No.l3 of 2010 was dismissed on contest. Aggrieved by which, the plaintiff in O.S.No.13 of 2010 preferred A.S.No.862 of 20t7. While the appeal was pending, the respondent No. I - plaintiff No.l addressed a letter to the Registrar (Judicial) on 26.11.2019 seeking to withdraw the First Appeal to file a fresh partition suit without prejudice to his legal rights.

10. The said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 2g. 1 I .2019 bv the following order: "The leamed counsel for the appellant had filed a letter, dated 26.11.2019, before the Registry, seeking permission of this Court to withdraw the appeal.

2. Permission is accorded.

3. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeat, shall stand closed."

11. The order passed by this court in A.S.No.862 of 2017 wourd nor disclose any permission or liberty granted to the appellant - plaintiff to file a fresh suit for partition. It records only that the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. It does not even disclose that the permission was accorded ..as prayed for,,. r -*1 6 Dr.GRR, J crp_1224_2O22 \

12. Thus, the prayer sought by the appellant in his rener addressed to the Registrar (Judicial) dated 26.11.2019 expressing his intention to file a fresh partition suit without prejudice to his legal rights, was not accorded. But the trial court in the impugaed order observed in para No.l0, as such: "Having not been challenged, the judgment in A.S.No.g62 of 2017 dated 28.11.2019, it became final. In view of the same, it can safely be inferred that having obtained permission from the Court in terms of Rule (3) of Order XXIII of CpC, the respondent No.l must have withdrawn the previous suit and filed the present suit for partition ofthe schedule properties.,, 13. Thus, the order passed by the trial court was based upon inferences drawn by it. The triar court held that the respondent No.l must have withdrawn the previous suit and fired the present suit having obtained permission from the court in terms of Rure (3) of order XXIII of cpc and had drawn an inference that he had obtained permission from the court. The trial court held that: "15. As already noted herein before, the Hon,ble Appellate Court permitted the respondents to withdraw the suit and basing on such orderg the subsequent suit has been filed- Therefore, the principtes laid down in the above decisions seem to be supported the contention of the respondents that the principles of res judicata would not be applicable to the subsequent suit in view-of. the permission granted by the Hon 'ble Appellate Court. Therefore, relying on the principles down in 2004 (t) RCR (civil) 42 of rhe Hon,bte Supreme lied on by the respondents, when considered the facts 7 Dr.GRR, J crp_1224 2022 and circumstances of the case on hand, it must be held that having obtained permission fiom the Hon'ble Appellate Court, the respondents filed the present suit and therefore, it cannot be said that the suit of the respondents - plaintiffs is baned by res judicata. From the aforesaid discussion, it must be held that this point is answered against the petitioner."

14. The order passed by this Court in A.S.No.862 of 2017 would clearly disclose that no permission was granted for filing a fresh suit. But the trial court went on to hold that this Court had granted permission to withdraw and that entitles the respondent No.l - plaintiff No.l to file a fresh suit. As the matter ln the previous suit is directly and substantially in issue in the present suit and the same was decided by the leamed III Additional District Judge, Karimnagar on contest and the appeal filed against it by the respondent No.l - plaintiff No.l was withdrawn by him, the same acts as res judicata and bars filing ofthe present suit under Section I I ofCPC. As such, the trial court erred in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner - defendant No.1 in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in O.S.No.l I I of 2020 dated.02.03.2022

15. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 02.03.2022 pxsed in I.A.No.4 of 2020 in O.S.No.1l1 of 2020 by the leamed Senior Civil Judge, Huzumagar No order as to costs. \_ 8 Dr.GRR, J up_1224 2022 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. 1 SD/- N. SRIHARI PUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPYtt To I 5?? B'dlT S,ilii *.,fis,#,i:!1?1,* roPUCl 3. One CC to SRt. K PRADEEP REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies .y &Gs-."--l- f--. F'Kwct", (RU, A.IV'-.O Qtr"-] N- HIGH COURT DATED:13/03/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1224 of 2022 '{ rrE S 14 14: 2 3 JUl'l 2E * * 'ir'.1TCF f--O z a n a+ ALLOWTN(; THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION ffi' t