The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : SRI B. ARJUN RAO Counsel representing Ms. BETHAMACHARLA SAI HARITHA The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER HON 'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSH]VIAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2392 OF 2025 ORDER Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counscl br thc petitioner and Sri B.Arjun Rao, leamed counsel representing M s }lethamcharla Sai Haritha, leamed counsel appearing for respondent.

2. Responderrt had filed a suit in O.S.No. 160 ol l0l8 on the flte of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Warangal. against thc petitioner herein/defendanl seeking perpetual inlunction in respei:t ot'open plot No.78 admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy.No. 1029 situat,:c[ at N'ladikonda Village, Kazipet Mandal, Warangal Urban Distric:t (hcrcinatter ref-erred to as 'subject property'), restraining "hc petitioner herc in/defendant from interlering with the pos:;cssion of the respondent/plaintiff over the subject property. AIor g rvith the said suit, the petitioner herein had filed I.A.No. 193 ol' l0l8 seeking arl lrterfur inj unction.

3.lt is the specific contention of the petitioner h':rein Lhat he has filed a caveat and without even putting the petiti'rrtel' trn notice, leamed trial Court on 14.03.2018, leamed trial Co,rrt clirected the petitioner herein to maintain status quo. 'fherefirrc. thc petitiorrer F \ ) herein has filed I.A.No.997 of 2018 in t.A.No. 193 ol 201E seeking to grant status - quo - ante directing the plaintiif to remove the illegal constructions made by her after I 4.03.20 I 8 in the subiect property.

4. The said suit was translerred to I Additional Senior Civil Judge - cum - I Additional Assistant Scssions Judge, Hanumakonda and re-numbered as O.S.No.766 of 2025 and the said interlocutory applications were re-numbered as I.A.No.5l I and 532 of 2025, respectively.

5. During the pendency of the said suit, respondent/plaintiff had filed I.A.No.573 of 2025 in O.S.No.766 of 2025 under Order VII Rute l4 of CPC, to receive the lbllowing additional documents which are specifically mentioned in the application:- l) House Construction Permission. datcd 15.0,1.2018. 2) Copy of property tax asscssment fbr t I.No.30-02- I l5l/4 along with payment receipts all datcd --i 1.07.2018. 3) Copy of property tax assessment lbr thc said house along with latest tax payment rcccipt datcd I 8.0 j.20 I 9. 4) Copy of property [a\ assessmenl lbr the said housc along with latest tax paymerlt rcceipt dated 2 I .0-r.2020. 5) Copy of property tax asscssment firr the said house along with latest tax payment rcccipt dated I 2.0:1.202 I . 6) Property tax paynlent rcceipt lor thc said housc. dated

16.05.2023 and 3 7) Propertl' tax Paylnent rcceipt for the said hou;c datcd 0 t.04.2()25.

6. The petitioner here in/defendant filed countcr opposing the said application contending that he is the absolute the orvner and possessor ol the land admeasuring 300 sq.yards in Sy'No l030/l) situated at Madikonda Viltage, Kazipet Mandal, \\ arangal Urban District. Respondent is claiming that she is the abso ute owner and possessor of tl-re suit schedule property basing on thc registered salc dccd bearing docurnent No.l911993 dated 02.01.1991 r nd in tlre cause title. she mentioned hcr age as 37 years and by tl e datc ol said docurnent, she was l2 years only, therefore, it is a s raln docutnctrt' Basing on the said interim order daterl l4 0i'20 l8' respondent/plaintil'f proceeded with the constmcticn and fi led albresaid documents. The petitioner herein/defendanl also requested thc leamed tlail Court to decide the aforesaid t\\ o intcrlocutory applicatiorrs vide I.A.Nos.53l and 532 of 2025 first lhercafter' the present application i.e. I.A.No.573 of 2025. Without :onsidering the sar.ne, vide imptrgned order dated 02.07.2025, learrred trial Coun allorved the said application and received the srLid documents' Challenging the said order, the petitioner herein 1l eC the prcscnt rc\'lston- 4

7. Perusal of the record would reveal that the respondent herein/plaintiff filed the afbresaid suit against the petitioner herein/de fendant seeking perpetual injunction. She has also tlted l.A.No. 193 of 201 8 in the said suit seeking ad interim inj unction Vide order dated 14.03.20 I 8, leamed trial Courr directed the petitioner herein/defendant to maintain status quo with regard to the subject property. Thereafter, the petitioner herein has fllcd I.A.No.997 of 2018 in the said suit seeking a direction to the respondent to grant status - quo - ante directing thc plaintitT to rcrrove the illegal constructions made by her after 14.03.2018 in thc sub.iect property. It is apt to note that the petitioner herein has filed a revision vide CRp No.2l42 of 2022 challenging the docker order dated 14.03.2018 in LA.No.193 of 2018 in O.S.No.160 of 2018 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, at Warangal, conrend ing that despite caveat filed by the petitioner herein /defendant without putting him on notice, learned trial Court passed order dated 14.03.2018 directing him to maintain status quo. Vide order dated I | .1I.2022, this Court allowed the said CRP and directed the trial Courr ro dispose of ) l.A.No.l93 of 2018 in O.S.No.160 of 2018 within a period of four (4) weeks lrorn the date of receipt of a copy of the said orcler.

8. 'l-he petitioner herein/defendant has alr.;c' filed another revision vide CRP No. I 752 of 20 l9 seeking a direcr ion to trial Court to dispose oi I.A.No.997 of 2018. Vide order dated ()3.04.2025, this Court disposed of the said revision directiirg plaintifl t(r file counter, il any, in I.A.No.()97 of 2018 within a period of two (l)weeks lrom the date of'reccipt ol a copy ol the said order and also directed the trial Couft to disposc of I.A.No.997 of 2018 in I.A.NI'.t93 ol 2018 in O.S.No.160 of l0 l8 within a period of one (1) week therealter.

9. It is the specific contention of the learnctl counsel fbr thc petitioner that leamed trial Court without complyi.rll with the said order i.e. disposing of I.A.No. 193 (new I.A.Nc.53l of 2025) I.A.No.997 of 2018 (new I.A.No.532 of 2025), allouerl I.A.No.573 of' 2025 filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff seekirrg to t'eceive the documents. -lhus. there is violation of the aforesaid orders passed by this Courl in the aloresaid two revisions.

10. As rightly contended by the leamed c,runsel tbr thc petitioner, leanred trial Court without deciding the albresaid two applications i.e. l.A.Nos.53l and 532 of 2025, r ide order dated Y \ 6

02.07.2025 allowed LA.573 of 2025 tllcd by the respondent herein/plaintiff seeking to receive certain documents, therefore, the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 in I.A.No.573 ol 2025 in O.S.No.766 of 2025 of learned trial Court is contrary to the aforesaid orders dated 11.11.2022 in CRP No.2142 ol 2022 and dated

03.04.2025 in CRP No.l752 of 2019 passed by this Court. I I . Documents sought to be received by thc plaintifI are propefty rax receipts from 31.07.2018 to 01.04.1025. Thus. the plaintiff obtained the said receipts during pendency ol'the atbrcsaid suit and interlocutory application i.e. I.A.Nos.531 and 532 of 1025 and sought to receive the same for consideration and disposal ol the aloresaid two interlocutory applications i.e. I.A.Nos.53 I and 532 of

2025. Despite the said contentions of the petitioner herein, without considering the same, leamed trial Court allowed I.A.No.573 of 2025 vide impugned order dated 02.07.2025. Thus, learned trial Court cannot decide I.A.Nos.573 of 2025 filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff without considering and disposing the two applications i.e. l.A.Nos.53 I and 532 of 2025 filed by the defendant and the plaintiff respectively. 7 To, 1 1

12. This Civil Revision Petition is disposed ol Thc impugned order dated (12.07.2025 passed in I.A.No.573 ol 2025 in O'S'No'766 ol 2025 by the t Additional Senior Civit Judge - cur I Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Hanurnakonda is set aside. The leamed trial Court is directed to dispose of I.A.Nos.53 I and 512 of 2025 in cornpliance r.vith the orders dated 1l.ll-2022 in CRP No.2l 12 of 2022 and dated 01.04.2025 in CRP No. 1752 of 2019 passe'J b1 this Court and thereatier. to decide I.A.No.573 of 2025.

13. Dtrring thc course of hearing, it is brougli' lcl the notice of this Court thaL pleadings in the aforesaid two anplications i'e' I.A.Nos.53l and 5ll of 2025 are complete. In the light o1'the same, learned trial Courl shalt dispose of the aforesaid tu'c applications i'e' I.A.Nos. 531 and 512 of 2025 within two weeks liom the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and to decide I.A No.573 of 2025 within two weeks thcreafter. Parties are at libert) t o raise all the grounds/conten tions which they have raised in the prc:sent CRP before the trial Court in the afbresaid three applications //TRUE COPY// SD/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR :; SECTION OFFICER I Additional Senior civil Judge-cum-l Additional Assistart sessions Judge' Hanamkonda 2 o;;tc'i; SRI s SURENDER REDDY A$.vp9aJe-toPtlcl 5. 5;; 66 io sni. aErHAvecnnnL-q. sAl HARITHA Advo'rate toPUCl 4. Two CD CoPies GE/PSLJ. r HIGH COURT DATED:31/'10/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2392 ot 2025 ) ( 1 tl- Sr '. )€ ( q () J 1i il[\/ mE , \ DISPOSING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 6