Heard Sri v. S. Sudhaker

Mr. Najaf Ali Khan @ Akber, S/o Late Mr. Hussain Ati Khan, Aged about 65 years, Occ Business, Rl/o H. No. 22-7 -533, Purnai Haveli, HydErabad. Mr .Sye^d Mohd.Ali Khan @ Hadi, S/o Late Abbas Ati Khan, Aged about 4g years, Occ Business, R/o Mir Alam AGuest House, Talab Bag-h, Hyderabad. Pgtn.Bgp. !y !ngi1_e_e.f. !-tolder, Mohd. Afzat, Sio. Shaik Habeeb ur Rahman, R/o. H. No. 1 9-3-1 077 I N 1 1 I A, Sarfaraz Jung Colony, Jahanuma, Hyderabad.' ...Respondents/Plaintiff lA NO: 'l OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct dismiss the present suit under the provisions of section i 1 of civil procedure code. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V S SUDHAKER Counsel for the Respondents: SRI SHAIK SHAFEE UR RAHEMAN The Court made the following: ORDER / l l . THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE R.ENUX, . YARA CTVIL REVISION PETITION No.2186 of 2124 ORDER: Heard Sri V. S. Sudhaker, learned counsel for the re rision petitioner and Sri Shaik Shafee Ur Raheman, leamed counsel for he respondents. Perused the entire record.

2. This revision is preferred aggrieved by the order dat d t0.06'2024 in l.A.No. 1052 of 2023 in O.S.No.1408 of 2019 passed by rl e learned XVlll Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderab d ('trial Court), wherein a petition filed under Section 11 of C.P.C., tc lismiss the suit under the concept of res judicata, has been dismissed.

3. The suit in O.S.No.1408 of 2019 was filed bythe r: pondents herein seeking retief of recovery of possession, mandatory itt rnction and fbr damages. In the said suit, the [.A. under revision is filed .< dismiss the suit under Section I I of C.P.C. under the concept of res iudi<:tt t. 4- It is the contention of the revision petitioner that the respondents have filed suit for declaration of title and perpetua injunction vrde O.S.No. 1307 of 2010 on the file of the leamed VII Senior )ivil Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad and the said suit was dismisse I vlde judgment and decrce dated 16.07.2021 . The parties in O.S.No.1-]0 of 20t0 and in L L cRp 2rs6lli o.S.No.1408 of 2ol9 are the same and therefore, the suit is covered under the principle of res judicata, as such sought dismissal of the same.

5. The respondents opposed the petition by filing counter alleging that they are owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and are not concemed with o.S.No.l307 of 2010, which is completely different and there is no resemblance with respect to the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property and the relief claimed are compretely different and no relief was sought by the respondents against the revision petitioner in O.S.No.1307 of 2010 and therefore, the concept of res judicata is not applicable.

6. The trial court examined the facts of the case vrs-d-uri Section ll of C.P.C. and dismissed the I.A., leading to filing of the presenr revision.

7. In the grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the respondents do not have any right over the suit schedule property to seek relief of recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. Further, it is pleaded that the evidence of GPA holder of the respondents cannot be taken into consideration. The petition filed by the revision petitioner lrom preventing the GPA holder of the respondents from adducing evidence has been dismissed by the trial Court by not observing the facts of the case, as such it is pleaded that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. !^1 2 I I i RY,J cRP 2186 2024

8. Leamed counsel for the revision petitioner argued tl rt subject matter of suit in O.S.No.1307 of 2010 and the present suit l; the same and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable. g. Per contra, the leamed counsel for the responden"r has argued that there is no connection between the suits as parties, ll e suit schedule property and the relief claimed are different and therefo r ,, the concept of res judicata is not applicable. t0 ln the backdrop of the rival contentions, there is net C to examine the case of the revision petitioner vis-d-vis Section l1 of C.t. l. Section 1 I of C.P.C. is extracted and produced below: I I "Section : Res iudicata No Cou( shall tn any suit or issue in which the mattr:: directly and substantially in issuc has been directly and substantiall '' in issue in a fbnner suit betrvcen the same parties, or between partie s under whom they or any of-thern claim, litigating under the same ti;l :- in a Court competent to try such sukrsequent suit or the suit in whi h such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and 1i Lally decided by such Court." I l. As per the above section, the second suit cannot I e tried when the main issue in it is directly or substantially the main ssue directly or substantially in former suit between the same parties ur< er whom they or any of them clairn, litigating under the same title, in a () 'urt competent to \ \ 3 . / \t a/ I l ; I a RY,J cRP 2186 2024 ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision lacks merits and the same is liable to be dismissed

14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 10.06.2024 passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1052 of 2023 in O.S.No.1408 of 2019. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. SD/.AHSGOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /a SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, '1. The XVIII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri V S Sudhaker, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Shaik Shafee Ur Raheman, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies AB d i I HIGH COURT DATED: 1611012A25 ORDER CRP.No.2186 ot 2024 DISMISSING THE CRP WTHOUT COSTS ;/a ;) t2\\ \ ii,r'- S I.i ,( 19 [![ mf '--i- ---:::-; i7' ar n--^,rr