The High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in A.S.No. 16112012 before the lll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L. B.Nagar, Hyderabad pending disposal of the main revision, in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner(s): SRI AVANCHA H CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI K. KRISHNA SHRAWAN The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE DT' JUSTICE G.RADHA RAI\.I CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.138l of 2021 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by th" . petitioner - appellant aggrieved by the order dated 26.07.2021 passed in I.A.No.134 of 2016 in A.S.No.l6l of 2012 by the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad.

2. l'he revision petitioner is the appellant - defendant in O.S.No'3 of 2002' During the pendency of the revision, the revision petitioner died al1d his legal representatives were brought on record as petitioners 2 to 6.

3. The facts of the case in briefare that O.S.No.3 of 2002was filed by the respondent - plaintiff seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 23.06.1995 and for recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The trial court after full-fledged trial decreed the suit by its judgment dated 16.04.2012. Against the said judgment and decree, the petitioner herein preferred an appeal vide A.S.No.16l of 2012 on the file of the leamed III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy District at L'B'Nagar, Hyderabad. During the pendency of the said appeal, the respondent filed a petition under Order XXIII Rule (4a) read with Section 151 of CPC to permit I I I i i I I I I I l ! I : i I I 2 Dr.GRR, J crp_l3EI 2021 j.-J -ii her to abandon her claim in respect of the suit sub-survcy No.391/a of the suit schedule property situated at Managalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District. The lower Appellate Court allowed the said application. Aggrieved by which, this revision is preferred by the petitioner - respondent - appellant.

4. Heard Sri Avancha H.Chakravarthy, [earned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.Krishna Shrawan, learned counsel for the respondent.

5. Leamed counsel fbr the petitioner submitted that thc suit rvas decreed by the trial court in the year 2012. When the respondent - plaintiff was abandoning the relief in respect of a ponion of the suit surv'ey number, it would amount to amending the decree, which could not be permitted under law. The respondent had not given any reasons for filing the petition abandoning part of the suit claim. The respondent filcd the said application at a bclated stage after a lapse of l4 years. As such, the lower Appellate Court ought to have dismissed the application. The respondent plaintiff had given common boundaries for two separate survey numbers, even though the same were subdivided. Therefore, the boundaries given were not colrect. In Ex.Al agreement ofsale, there were no sub-survey numbers for suit schedule survey numbers and prayed to set aside the order passed by the lower Appellate Court. Dr.GR& J crp_l3tl 2021

6. Leamed counsel for ttre respondent on the other hand contended that only to set right the record, the petitions were filed. Appeal was continuation ol the suit, no prejudice would be caused to the revision petitioner in allowing the application and prayed to dismiss the Civil Revision Petition. 7 . Perused the record.

8. As seen from the affidavit filed by the respondent - plaintiff in I.A.No.l34 of 2015, she stated that she filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale in respect of Survey No.3 l9 to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas or its sub-survey Nos.3l9la 319/e, 319lee, 319/u and 319/ru and ghut Survey No.335 to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas or its sub-survey No.335/e to an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas, total admeasuring 5-00 guntas as described in the schedule of land annexed to the plaint situated at Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District. On contest, the said suit was decreed on

16.04.2012. She further submitted that the respondent - appellant preferred an appeal and while her counsel was preparing for arguments in the appeal, the petitioner - respondent noticed that at the time of filing the original suit O.S.No.3 of 2002 on the file of the leamed Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, due to oversight i.e. rypographical error, one of the suit sub-survey No.39l/a along with other sub-survey numbers is shown against ghut Survey No.3l9. The petitioner never intended to file the suit against the respondent - appellant I I i I I ,! i ;..d +f.if 4 ".,-?;trBi in respect, of Survey No.319/a. Actually, the suit schedule tand bearing ghut suwey No.3l9 to an extent of Ac.3-00 guntas was covcred by sub-survey Nos.3l9le, 319/ec. 319/u, 319/uu, 319/ru only in total to an exrent of Ac.3-00 guntas situated at Mangalpally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Rangareddy District. To avoid further complications, the petitioner was abandoning her claim against sub-survey No.3l9la, which was shown as onc of the sub-survey Nos. against the ghut survey No.3 I 9.

9. The contention of the respondents was that after abandoning the sub- survey No.319/a, the boundaries of the entire suit schedule property would be changed and that in the agreement of sale, there was no whisper about the sub- survey numbers, there was no explanation as to how the said sub-survey numbers came into cxistence and if such abandonment was allowed, the decree passed by the court below would stand modified and the same would lead to multiplicity of litigation and that the application was filed after a lapse of 14 years, as such, not maintainable.

10. The lower Appellate Court on considering the contentions of both the leamed counsel and considering the provision of Order XXIII Rule 1, observed that, the plaintiffbeing the dominus /irrs could withdraw the suit or give up part or whole of the claim and the delay could not be a ground to reject the claim. J 5 Dr.GR&J ca_1381 2021 However, considering the delay in filing the application, imposed cost of Rs.2,000/- on the plaintiff payable to the respondent - defendant (appellant).

11. This court does not find any merit in the contention of the leamed counsel for the revision petitioner that the boundaries of the suit schedule property would be changed by abandonhg the claim by the respondent - plaintiff. The contention of the respondent - plaintiff was that the suit schedule propertytoanextentofAc.3-00guntasinSurveyNo'3lgwasonlycoveredby sub-survey Nos.319/e, 3l9lee, 319/u,319/uu and 319/ru, but not by 319/a and the same was mentioned by mistake. The contention of the revision petitioner also was that no sub-survey number was mentioned in the agreement of sale' As such, the same would not alter the boundaries or the judgment and decree in any manner.

12. As Order XXIII Rulel cPC provides that the plaintiff could abandon the suit or part of the claim at any time after institution of the suit and the appeal is also nothing but an extension ol the suit, this court considers that the order passed by the lower Appettate court is within its jurisdiction and no error was committed by the lower Appeltate Court in passing the impugned order'

13. In the result, the civit Revision Petition is dismissed conhrming the order passed by the leamed III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rangareddy Dr.GRR, J crp_1381 2021 Dishict at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad in I.A.No.l34 of 2016 in A.S.No.161 of 2012 6 dated 26.07 .2021 . No order as to costs As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// S(+ D1- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ITANT REGISTRAR \, I \="r,o" oFFrcER To, 1 The lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B-Nagar, Hyderabad

2. One CC to Sri Avancha H Chakravarthy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K Krishna Shrawan, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies lq- HIGH COURT DATED:1010412025 ORDER CRP.No.1381 ot 2021 1 F- -\^ f' ( ( 2 6 AU6 2025 ' li:' il": \o. '\.'t \ Dismissing the Givil Revision petition @coPleA \q- !-rtft*s