Shaik Shoukath Ali v. '1 . Naser Khamees

Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Muhammad Veqar Hussain Counsel for the Respondents: - CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2296 OF 2025 Civil Revision filed under Arlicle 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the order dated 'l 1.06.2025 passed in EA Nos. 4 of 2025 in EA No 5 of 2017 in EP No 7 of 20 16 on the file of the court of the lll Addl Rent Controller, Hyderabad Between: I Shaik Shoukath Ali, S/o Shaik Osman Ali, Aged about 64 years, Occ. Business. R/o H No 1814231711 , Phoolbagh, Chandrayangutta. Hyderabad. ...Petitioner AND 1 Naser Khamees. S/o Khamees Bin Saif Ahmed, R/o H. No. 18-14171318A, Phoolbagh, Hyderabad, Residing at Post Box No. 79206, Rashdiya, Dubai, Represented by their GPA Holder, Sultan Begum, Wo Khamees Bin Saif Ahmed, Aged 51 years, tuo H. No. 18-1423 1 13, Phoolbagh, Hyderabad. 2 Marryam Kharnees. D o Khamees Bin Saif Ahmed, R/o H. No. 1B-1-417l3/8A, Phoolbagh, Hyderabad, Residing at Post Box No. 79206, Rashdiya, Dubai. Represented by their GPA Holder, Sultan Begum, Wo Khamees Bin SaifAhmed. Aged 51 years, Rl/o H. No. 18-1-423 113, Phoolbagh, Hyderabad 3 Mesah Khamees. D/o Khamees Bin Saif Ahmed, R/o H. No. 18-1-4171318A, Phoolbagh. Hyderabad, Residing at Post Box No. 79206, Rashdiya, Dubai, Represented by their GPA Holder, Sultan Begum, Wo Khamees Bin SaifAhmed Aged 51 years, R/o H. No. 18-1{23 113, Phoolbagh. Hyderabad 4 Mohammed Saleem, S/o Mohd. Haneef, R/o H. No. 18.1436122 and 23, Nirqui Phoolbagh. Chandrayangufta, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.4 is not necessary party in this CRP) ...Respondents lA NO: 'f OF 2025 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of E.P. No. 7 of 2016 filed before the Honourable Rent Controller, Hyderabad. t Addl. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Muhammad Veqar Hussain Counsel for the Respondents: - CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2332 OF 2025 I Civil Revision filed under Anide 227 of the Constitution of lndia, aggrieved bythe orderdated 11.06.2025 passed in EA Nos. 5of 2025 in EA No 5oI 2017 in EP No 7 of 2016 on the file of the court of the lll Addl Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Between: Shaik Shoukath Ali, S/o.Shaik Osman Ali,Aged about 64 years, Occ. Business, R/o H. No. 181423nn, Phoolbagh, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad ...PETITIONER AND

1. Naser Khamees, S/o Khamees Bin Saif Ahmed 2. Martyam Khamees, D/o Khamees Bin Saif Ahmed 3 Mesah Kharnees, D/o Khamees Bin Saif Ahmed All R/o H. No. 18-1-417/3/84, Phoolbagh, Hyderabad, Residing at Post Box No 79206, Rashdiya, Dubai, U.A.E., Represented by their GPA Holder, Sultan Begum, Wo Khamees Bin SaifAhmed,Aged 51 years, R/o H. No. 18- 142311113, Phoolbagh, Hyderabad. 4 Mohammed Saleem, S/o Mohd. Haneef, R/o H. No. 181436i22 and 23. Nirqui Phoolbagh, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad. (Respondent No.4 is not necessary party in this CRP) ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings of E.P. No. 7 of 2016 filed before the Hon'ble lll Addl. Rent Controller, Hyderabad. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri. Muhammad Veqar Hussain Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I THE HONOURABLE SRI JI'STICE P. SAM KOSIIY Civil Rewision Petition No.2293 of 2O2Sz Civil Rewision Petition No.2296 of 2025 Ciwil Revision Petition No.2332 of 2o25 COMMON ORDER : Since the issue arising out of the instant Civil Revision Petiticns is one and the same and tJle parlies thereto are also the same, they are being heard and decided b_r' this Common Order.

2. Heard Mr.Muhammad Veqar Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the Revisions.

3. For conr':nience the facts in Civil Revision Petition No.2293 cf 2025 ar'.'discussed hereunder.

4. Civil Ri:r,rsi'.rn Petitirn No.2293 of 2025 is filed by tJle petitioner r-u'i<i::r A-;-trcle 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the Common Order dated 1L.O6.2O25 in E.A.Nos.3. 4 and 5 of 2025 in E.A.No.5 of 2OL7 in E.P.No.7 of 20 1 6 pa ssed br, the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, (for short, 'the impugned orderJ. 2 crp_2293_2o25&batch P5K,J 5, Vid.e the impugned common order, the Trial Court \ dismissed all the above three E.A.s., i.e., E.A.No.3 of 2025 which were filed by the petitioner under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 19O8 praying the Trial Court to re-call CW. 1 for marking of documents as exhibits; E.A.No.4 of 2025 which was filed by the petitioner under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 19O8 praying the Trial Court to re-open the evidence; and E.A.No.S of 2025 which was Iiled by the petitioner under Rule 7(5) of R.C. Rules praying the Tria,l Court to receive the document, viz., certified copy of judgment and decree dated 13.2O.2O2O in O.S.No.S1l of 2Ol7 as evidence of the petitioner / claim petitioner.

6. The instant batch of Civil Revision Petitions flou from an execution proceedings, viz., E.P.No.7 of 2016 arising out of O.S.No.99 I of 2016 which was filed by the petitioner herein before the VIII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hvderabad, seeking for relief of perpetual injunction br restraining the landlord, his heirs, men, servants, agents and person or persons from interfering with the suit schedule property. In the said E.P. proceedings, the evidence of petitioner herein stood closed on-O5.O9.2OZ+ 3 PSK,J crp_2293_2o25&batch whereafter the petitioner had submitted that there is no further evidence which he intends to lead, and therefore the matter was posted for final arguments. It was at that stage when the instant E.A.s, viz., E.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2025 were filed by the petitioner seeking for marking of a document u,hich is said to be a certified copy of the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2O2O in O.S.No.S11 of

2017. The said applications were filed by the petitioner as late as on 13.03.2025 and, as stated earlier, the evidence of petitioner stood ciosed on 05.O9 .2024.

7. Another fact which is revealed from the proceedings is that the afore said certified copy which the petitioner intends to mark was obtained by him almost a year ago, i.e., on 13.O2.2021 , r'ide an application which he has made on 29.OI.2O'24. Thar is the period when the evidence of petitioner had not been closed, and which fact further indicates that when the evidence of petitioner was recorded the petitioner \{,,as very well au.are of the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2O2O ro O.S.No.51L of 2OL7. Therefore, the petitioner had a certified copy with him yet he did not feel it to be either marked or r-eferred to in his evidence. It was in this context that the above three E.A.s were filed \ 4 PSK,J crp_229j_2o25&batch and the learned executing Court found that no justifiable reasons have been assigned while moving the said applications except taking the plea of inadvertence and \ oversight.

8. Considering the reasons assigned by the Trial Court more particuiarly looking into the factual developments that have transpired pending the E.P.No.7 of 2016 before the Executing Court, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity on the part of the Executing Court while rejecting the E.A.Nos.3, 4 and 5 of 2025 in E.A.No.S of 2Ol7 in E.P.No.7 o{ 2016, vide t}re common impugned order. Horvever, it appears that the said E.A.s have now been filed onlv r..'ith a mala fde intention of protracting the proceedings before the Trial Court, and in t1lre process the petitioner u'ho is occupying the premises as an alleged tenant continues to occupy the premises.

9. Therefore, for ali the aforesajd reasons, this Court does not find an-v merit in the Civil Revision Petition No.2293 of 2025. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition fails and the same deserves to be and is accordingl-v dismissed. Nc costs. I I I 5 PsrtJ crp_2293_2o25&batch /

10. As a consequence, Civil Revision Petition Nos.2296 and 2332 of 2025 a.lso stand dismissed, No costs.

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these Revisions, shall srand closed. SD/. A.V.S.PRASAD OEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S ON OFFICER I To,

1. The lll Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Sri Muhammad Veqar Hussain, Advocate [OPUCI 3. Two CD Copies DUPSL w HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 I I l, I J COMMON ORDER C.R.P Nos: 2293,2296,2332 OF 202s r,_ srA { \ (-_; c-) 2 B JA}{ 2026 t I t l') -\. * DISMISSING THE C,R.PS €> ,t(A 56'