The High Court · 2025

1. Mr.lVloh4mmad Abdul Naseeb Khan, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Raqeeb Khan, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.:11-1-120411/3, Habeeb Nagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad.

2. Amtul Ayesha, Wo. tMohd. Abdul Naseeb Khan, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Household. R/o. H.No.11-1-12041113, Habeeb Nagar, I\4allepally, Hyderabad. 3. Shahanmaj Khan Alias Shahnaz Khanam, W/o. tM.A.Haseeb Khan, Aged about 60 years, Occ: Household, R/o.H.No.11-1-12041113, Habeeb Nagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad.

4. M.A.Muqhader Khan, S/o. Late M.A.Haseeb Khan, Aged about 32 years, Occ: B.usiness, R/o. H.No.11-1-120411/3, Habeeb Nagar, t\4allepally, Hyderabad. 5. Mohammed Abdul Rauf Khan, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Raqeeb Khan, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business R/o.H.No.11-1-120411/3, Habeeb Nagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad.

6. Mohammed Abdul Moyeed Khan, S/o. Late Mohammed Abdul Raqeeb Khan, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.11-1-12041113, Habeeb Nagar, Mallepally, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS No.2 to 7/DEFENDANTS NO.2 TO 7. AND

1. Smt. Fareena Begum, Wo. Late Abdul Rahim, Aged about 58 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1-4-561N1, Hussaini Mohalla, Narayankhed Town and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. RESPONDENT No.1 /PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF

2. Rahima Begum alias Rahematunnisa Begum, Aged about 75 years, Occ: Household, R/o. H.No.1-4-56, Hussaini l/ahalla, Narayankhed Town and Mandal, Sanga Reddy District. RESPONDENT No.2/ RESPONDENT No.1/DEFENDANT No.1 -- lF

3. The Municipal Commissioner Narayankhed, N Narayankhed Town and Mandal, Sanga Reddy D arayankhed istrict. Municipality, at (R2 and R3 are not necessary party) RESPONDENT No.3/ RESPONDENT No.8/DEFENDANT No.8 l.A.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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.19 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Sanga Reddy, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Botla Venkateswara Rao Counsel for the Respondent No.1:Sri. L Venkateshwar Rao The Court made the following: ORDER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTTCE SUREPALLI NANDA ORDER Heard sri Bofla venkteshawara Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and sri L.venkateshwar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. Aggrieved by the order, dated 09.06.2025 passed in r.A.No.239 of zo2s in r.A.No.Loz ot 2o2s in o.s.No.l9 of 2025 on the file of r Additional District Judge, sangareddy District at sangareddy, the present civil Revision petition is filed. A i l extracted hereunder:- B. As seen from the record, the main IA.No.102 of 2025 is coming up for enquiry, which is not at commenced. The main suit is filed for comprehensive reliefs of declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The E:. 2 relief in I.A.No.102 of 2025 is for the temporary injunction restraining the Respondents/Defendants from raising further construction in Item No.1 of the plaint schedule property. This court has carefully perused the affidavit, counter affidavit filed by the Respondents and also the piopot"O additional affidavit filed by 'petitioner/Plaintiff: In view of facts alrd circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the nature of relief iougnt by the Petitioner/Plaintiff in I.A.No.102 of 2025, this court holds that an opportunity has to be given to the petitioner/Plaintiff to put forth her case. No prejudice would be caused to the Respondents and they will be given an opportunity to submit reply to the additional affidavit, if inv.'Under these circumstances, this court holds that the f.[ition"r/plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for' Accordingly, the point in question is answered' g. IN 'THE RESULT, This petition is allowed. The parties shall bear their own costs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- I DistricL Judqe. Add tional sanoareddv are the petitioners in the Dresent c.R.P. Sanq reddv District respondent No.1 in the Dresent cRP seekino Drayer as under:- "suit for declaration of title, to declare the plaintiff is absolute owner of suit schedule properties, and also recoveryofpossessioninrespectofsuit.scheduleproperty and mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to removetheillegal-andunauthorizedconstructioninitem no. 1 or tne scn"edule of the property at their own cost and also seeking relief to declare the documents i.e gift 3 settlement deed vide doc.no. 2233/2024 Dt: 3L-B-2024, gift settlement deed vides doc.no. 2254/2024 Dt:05-09- 2024, Sale deed 2043/2024 Dt: 37-7-2024, Mortgage deed vide doc.no. 2370/2024 Dt: 24/9/2024, Mortgage deed vide doc.no. 2371/2024 Dt: 24/9/2024 are void, not binding upon the Plaintiff, direct the municipal commissioner to delete the names of Defendant no. 2 to 5 and 7 deleting their name from the. gram panchayat records and as well as municipal record by inserting the name oF the Plaintiff in the municipal records in respect of suit schedule propefty." N h 2 2 in I. b h 2 !n 1 h seekin q Drav nder:- " may be pleased to accord permission to file additional pleadings by way of Additional Affidavit, in the above case, in the interest ofjustice....." The sa I !t n 1"t resoondent vide order, dated O9.O6.2O25, aoorieved bv the same, oetitioners herein filed the oresent C.R.P. 7 !ea rned cou nse A l'eann tr lrahalf i h ^f oetitioners submits that in soite of soecific oleas put-forth in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the oetitioners herein/ resoondent Nos.2 to 7 in I.A.No.239 of 2O25 in of 2025 o the file of I I.A.No.1O2 Additional District f udoe, Sanqareddv District at Sanoareddv, the said pleas had not been considered at all .s.N 4 r Additional District Judoe sangareddv District at oleadinos bv way of additional affidavit iimolv observino 2o25 on the file of r Additionat District Judqe sanqareddv affidavit. if anv. B. A bare perusar of the averments made at para Nos.2,3 and 5 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 to 7 in I.A.No.239 of zo25 in I.A.No.102 of zo2s in o.S.No.19 of 2025 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy, clearly indicate that specific pleas had been put-forth opposing the grant of relief to the 1't respondent herein by the petitioners herein in addition to specific objections raised pertaining to the very maintainability of the said petition under Section 151 cpc on taw and on facts. However, the t i I I I I I 5 learned Judge without giving any finding on the specific pleas put-forth by the petitioners in the present Civil Revision petition had allowed the same in favour of the 1.t respondent herein contrary to law.

9. A bare perusal of the order impugned indicates that the court of I Additional District Judge, Sangareddy District at sangareddy had not assigned any reasons in allowing I.A.No.239 of 2025 in I.A.No.102 of 2o2s in o.S.No.19 of 2025 fited by the respondent No.1 herein, it is evident on perusal of the order impugned, dated 09.06.2025 that the objections raised by the petitioners in the said I.A. pertaining to the very maintainabitity of the said petition for the relief sought for in the subject I.A. had not been considered nor any finding recorded in arriving at the conclusion to allow the said I.A. in favour of the 1rt respondent. contract and Leasino Kota vs. shukla and Brothers dated 15.o4.2o1o reported in (2o1or 4 scc 7g5 in oarticular at DA Nos.1 o, 12, L and 1 4, it is as un r:- 6 10' The increasing institution of cases in all courts in India and its resurtant burden upon the courts has invited -io.inirtration attention of ail concerned in the justice system. Despite heavy quantum of iases in courts, in our view, it wourd neither be permissibre no,. po*ibre to state as a principre of raw, that whire exercising power of judiciar review on administrative action and inoi. particurarry judgment of courts in appear before ttre nigner court, providing of reasons can never be dispenseo with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three Oasii essentials. Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose rights are rikery to be un..t"o adversery must be granted an opportunity 9f being h;;;. Secondly, Ih" authority concerned shourd provide a fair and transparent procedure and rasily, th; ;uilorit| concerned must apply its rnjld and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has oeen uniformry applied by courts in India and abroad. 12. In exercise of reasoned ord the foreign co of the power of judicial revi lers/actions has been enfor urts as by the courts ew, the concept rced equally by in India. The disposing of the hearing. case at admission stage or after whether regular

13. At the cos.t. of repetition, we may notice, that this court has consistenuy'taken in" view tnai iecording of reasons is an essentiat feature of dispensation of justice. A .:it. n:I :d :F 7 -.gr.rt ';Lstiiu. litigant who approaches the with any grievance in accordance with raw is entitteo to tno*-l(u reasons for grant or rejecti:l :f his prayer. Reason, ;;; the sout of orders' Non-recording oi ,.6uron, courd read to duar infirmities; firstly,. it riay carlg n."jrdice to the affected partv and seconltr; rol. ourtllrrurit;;;;;er tne proper administration of ?l-"ru principres'- u." not onry applicable to administrative oi .*".rtive actions, but they appry with equar force uno, in ra.t, *iin .;;"ter degree of precision to judiciir -bionorncements.- A judgment withour reason_s- causes orejuligg 1; whom it is pronounced, as t"ha.t ritigani is ,i#or" to know againsr rhe sround which *ui;i,* *itn tn" i;r;i ;;';ejectins his claim and arso causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to-t!g! iuOgment. Now, we may refer to 3:1,:JlJ;[flT:?F;1"rfi*,* ;:,;;ii ],= 3, rn" His; t4. The principle of natural justice has twin in gredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and .th;-r"iron Violation of either of them could in the given facts a nd circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule betng applicable to the administrati ve authorities certainly requires that r& B as under:-

3. In the election petition, it was alleged, inter alia, that the returned candidate had failed to make necessary disclosures in the nomination paper/the affidavit (i.e. Form 26) which had a material bearing on the election result' In supportofthatallegation,particularsofsuchnon- disclosure/incorrect disclosure were detailed in the election petition. These allegations, however. were not only traversed in the written statement filed by the returned candidate (i.e. the appellant herein) but additional facts were also laid out therein. As a result, the election petitioner filed an application seeking Ieave to file a replication, which came to be allowed by the impugned order of the High -Court. 4

26. As stated supra, the statement made in the replication are the denial of the statement made in the written statement filed by the first respondent to the election petition. If the same is received, no prejudice would be caused to the other side, espLcially, the first respondent, Moreover, it is the bounden'duty of the election petitioner to clarify the averments made by the first respondent in his written statement. That apart, there is no bar for clarification of the earlier pleading, which has already been taken in the election petition by the petitioner.

7.L Section 87 of the 1951 Act provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, and of any Rules made thereunder, an election petition shall be tried by the High Court in accordance with the procedure apiticabte under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 iiPc"l to try a suit. A written statement can be f iebutted under Order 8 Rule 94 CPC. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that filing of a replication in the proceedings of an election petition has no legal basis. B. Having taken note of the rival submissions, before we proceed to weigh the rival submissions in respect 9 of the correctness of the impugned order, it wourd be useful to consider the following issue: Whether during the course of the proceeding of an election petition, preferred under the provisions of the 1951 Act, subsequent preading. as envisaged in order B Rure g cpc. is permis-sible? If yes, in what circumstances leave to file such subsequent pleading may Oe granted by an Election Tribunat/Courti Subsequent pleading can be filed in an election petition 9' Before we dear with the aforesaid issue, it wourd be useful to refer to the provisions of cpc in reration to pleadings. order 6 Rure 1 cpc decrares that pleading shall mean a plaint and a written statement. Rule 9 of order.B specificaily edicts that no prlaoing subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to set-off or countercraim shail be presented except by the reave of the court. Though, however, the couri riy ut uny time require a written statement or additionar written statement. 'an

10. In Anant Construction (p) Lid. v. Ram Niwas, the High Court of Delhi. in exhaustivu ;rOg,,unt authored by R.C. Lahoti, J. as his Lordsfrip inen was. dealt with the terms "reprication" and ,,re5oinJer,,, is commonly used_ for ubsequent pleadings, ii atso as to when leave for filing subsequent pleading may be granted by the court. Rrter referring to v-arious legal texts including Forpus luris Secunium, it *u, observed: (SCC Online Del paras L2_L4) "L2. A more detaired rather exhaustive statement of law is to be fgund in Corpus Juris Secundum. It would be usefut to extract and reproduce th6 following paragraphs: \5 :, € l ; t; I I I ! I I I 10 A reply or replication is-pulely g defensive pleading, the office or function of whic'h is to deny, or arege facts in avoidance of nu* ,uiters aileged in the prea or answer and thereby join or make is"sue ur-io ,r.n new matters. No reply or replication is necessary where the issues are completed by, and no new matter is set up, in the plea or answer At common law a replication is necessary where a plea introduces new matter and concrudes with a verification; but under the .od"r. pruiti.u-uitr, or rules of civil procedure of a nrrO". or Stalls J repty to new defensive matter ii not necessary or is necessary onty *,1.i^o1!ergd by the .o;;t. ; ,repry a counterclaim is generally ne.ersa.y, but under some code provisions no reply or iupfi.ution is required in any case. Under the commo.n law system of pleading. plaintiff ffiEy, at his erection, fire a repricaiion to-a -speciar plea.setting up an affirmative defence. on the other hand, it is proper to reject a replication to pleas which merery traverse ailegations of the decraration and set up no new matter. where the prea concrudes to lfe contrary, plaintiff .unnot reply with any new matter but must either u..ujt it by a similiter or 9.Ir.r. So a good special i.utrr" can be answered issue thereon and noi ov r;ins a :$li.:I"joinins ,

11. Having obse.rved so, a distinction between a plea requiring amendment of the ptaini;il;;["i'rorgnt to be introduced by way of a reptication was noticed as under: "77. A distinction between a plea requirino amendment of the ptaint and , ;i;; ,ortj_.rt"iX be introduced by reprication shail have to be kept in view. A plea *ni.n .r*"ii.f f V constitutes the foundation of a ctatm made bv ";;; ""i the ptainriff or which is eisent;u;' . l 11 plaintiff's cause of action cannot be introduced through a replication. As already stated replication is always a defensive pleading in nature. It is by way of confession and avoidance or explanation of a plea raised in defence. It will be usefut to quote from Halsbury's Laws of England

62. Necessity for amendment. The fact that a party may not raise any new ground of ctaim, or include in his pleadings any allegation or fact inconsistent with his prerious pieadings, has been considered elsewhere. In order to raise such a new ground of claim, or to include any such allegation, amendment of the original pleading is essential t7.L. In M.S.M. Sharma v. Sri Krishna Sinha, their Lordships refused to consider a plea raised in rejoinder for the first time, observing: (SCC Online SC para 33)

33. ......The case of bias of the Chief Minister (Respondent 2) has not been made anywhere in the petition and we do not think it wourd be right to permit the petitioner to raise this question, for it depends on facts which were not mentioned in the petition but were put forward i a rejoinder to which the respondents had no opportunity to repty.,, '

12. Finally, the court summed up its conctusions as under: (Anant Construction cases, SCC OnLine Del para 24) "24. To sum up: (1) "replication" and "rejoinder" have weil defined meani ngs. Replication is a pleading by plaintiff in answer to defendant's plea. "Rejoinder" is_ a second pleading by defendant in answer to plaintiff's repty i.e. reptication. .taaaaaaa.atatal \ \, 'l I I i : 12 (+l a replication to written statement is not to be filed nor permitted to be filed orainarily, much les in routine. A reprication is peimissiore in three situations: (i) when required by law: (ii) when a countercraim is raised or set-off is pleaded by defendant; and (iii) when the court directs or permits a replication being filed. under:- 10 19' The court cannot rose sight of the fact that a losing litigant has a cause to'pread ano i-iignt to c.hallenge the order if it is aorete i; hi;-. 6pinion or the court arone can exprain the cause which red to passing of the finat order. Whether an .rg;;;;t was rejected varidry or otherwise, reasoning of the order alone can show. To evaluate the submissions is obligation of "the Court and to know the reasons for rejection of its contention is a regitimat" .*plitation on the part of the ritigant Another facet or brovioing reasoning is to give it a value of precedent which can help in, reduction of frivolous litigation. I Add iona ict Jud i - :- --.t-f 13 I a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the tearned counset appearing on beharf of the petitioners and tearned counser appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The order impugned, dated 09.06.2025 passed in r'A'No'239 0f 2025 in r.A.No.1o2 0J 2025 in o.s.No.1g of 2OZS on the fite of I Additional District Judge, sangareddy District at sangareddy (referred to and extracted above) d) The counter affidavit filed on behatf of the respondent Nos.2 to 7 in r.A.No.23g of 2025 in r.A.No.102 ex? 14 of 2025 in o.s.No.19 of 2o25 on the fire of r Additionar District Judge, Sangareddy District at Sangareddy e) The view of the Apex court in the judgments of the Apex court (referred to and extracted above ) and again enlisted below:- ix2o1o) 4 SCC 78s ii)(2024) s scc 3s3 iii)2019 LawSuit (Ail) LztB tm DUOn d. d 09. .202 DA I ditio nal i 15 Misce[aneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ pe tition, shall stand closed. /TRUE COPYII SD/TVIJAYA LAKSHMT ISTANT REGISTRAR CTION OFFICER To

1. The I Additional District Judge, at Sanga Reddy. 2. one CC to Sri. Botl; V;;katEr*.r, nr6, noro.ate [opUCl I ?,13 33 t";kt v""tlt"iri*,.n,o, ni",;;UioFd6t ""' pr \ft( : i t' I I HIGH COURT DATED: 01 10912025 ORDER CRP.No.2440 of 20Zs ALLOWING THE CRP ,fl"' (, h.P ll, lt_ ilEljf