The High Court · 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 o{ all further proceedings in O.S.No.177/2019 on the Iile of the junior Civil Judge-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, at Alair during the pendency of the present Revision. '- Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri S.Ashok Kumar. Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Mohd Islamuddin Ansari Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri Aziz Hussail. Counsel for the Respondent No.6: Sri Mohin Sharief. The Court made the fo1lon'ing: ORDER ,, -/ 'f1 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO CML REVISION PETITION No.272O of 2023 ORDER: Heard Sri S. Ashok Kumar, iearned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, learned counsel for respondent No.1. Sri Aziz Hussain, learned counsel for respondcnt No.2 and Sri Mohin Sharief, iearned counsel for respondent No.6 did not advance their arg.rments. Perused the material on record.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India which arises out ol dismissal of an application for rejection of plaint i.e., i I.A.No.985 of 2022 dated 31.07 .2023.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent Nos.3 to 5 and 7 are not necessary parties.

4. Counsel submits that the learned trial Court failed to conS1 I e resd der that there is no avernent in the plaint that ondent No.1/plaintiff has not made out anv effort l to get the sale deed registered in his favour, if at all he has purchased the suit schedule property from respondcnt Nos.2 to 4. Thc trial Court also failed to consider that respondent No. 1 - plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale on 13.02.2008 with the revision petttroner delendant No.5 and respondent No.5 - defendant No.4 r'ramelv Sri Mohammed Mustafa Vazir Alam. The triai Court also failed to consider the o\ /ner of the property 1S rcspondent Nos.2 to 4 who purchased the same through n:gistcrcd sa-le deed bearing document No.4245 12006 dated 03.11.2006, in turn sold the sarne to respondent No.6 vide registered AGPA bearing document No.BBB2/2014 dated 16.O9.2O14. The learned trial Court wrongly considered the pleadings of the parties and came to a wrong conciusion and dismissed the application, also lailed to consider the issue of limitation and prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 31.O7.2023. 'q"j:aY,/ I .)

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 piaintiff submits that the lcarned tria-1 Court has properly appreciatcd the lacts of case and rightly rejected the applicatior-r hled by the petitioner defendant No.5. Hence, no interference is ca,iled for and prayed to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Nor.r, the point for consideration is: Whether the order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, A-lair in I.A.No.9B5 of 2022 in O.S.No.177 of 2019 dated 3L.07.2023 suffers from any perversit5r or illegality, if so does it requires the interference of this Court.

7.' Respondent No.l is the plaintiff who filed the suit for declaration to declare him as absolute owrrer of the remaining portion of house bearing Gram Panchayat No.1-128, ln Survey No.13/3, admeasuring 1270.5 sq.1.ards, comprising of Tin Shed and Well, situated at Wargapally village and Grampanchayath, Yadagirigutta Mandal, Bhongir District and to cancel the registered agreement ol sale-cum-Irrevocable General power of .1 Attorney with possession dated 16.O9.2014 vide document No.8882/2014 and for perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 6 therein (i.e., respondent Nos.2 to 5 and petitioner herein) from interlering in his peaceful possession arld enjoyment ol the suit schedule properfy. B. The petitioner - defendant No.5 has filed I.A.No.985 of 2022 under Order VII Rule I 1(d) of CPC to reject the plaint as it is barred by limitation. Respondent No.1 - plaintiff has filed his counter. After hearing both thc parties, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the said interlocutory application holding that the petitioner has not made out a case for rejection of plaint.

9. On perusal of the plaint in para No.6, which states that on 15.09.2019 at about 11:00 A.M. while the piaintiff i.e., respondent No.t herein was cutting the bushes with the help of labore rs, the defendzrnt Nos. 1, 2, 5 (petitioner herein) and 6 along with their associates, all of a sudden carne to the suit schedule property high ) handedly and tried to trespass and dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. It is further stated in the plaint in para No.10 that delendant Nos.4 and 5 conspired "vith defendant Nos. 1 and 2 illega11y ard uniaw{u1i1, tried to grab the suit schedule property of the plaintiff (i.e., respondent No. i herein) only to gain illegally and cause loss and damages to the plaintift.

10. The respondent No.1 - plaintifl is seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioner - defendant No.5 and defendant Nos.l to 4 ald 6 as they interfered in his peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule properlz 1 i. On perusal of the impugned order dated

31.07.2023, the learned trial Court has discussed the contentions rajsed by the parties therein in para Nos.9, ( 10, 11 ald 16 and rightly came to a conclusion that the issue rvith regard to the limitation is a mixed question of fact and 1a11,, which is a triable issue and rejected the application fiied b1, the petitioner - defendant No.5. As 6 l-', the cause of action for the plaintiff (respondent No.l hcrein) arose on 15.09.2019 thereby he sought the relief of perpetual injunction restraining defendant Nos. 1 to 6 tl-rerein from interlering rvith his possession, this Court is ol' t.he view that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly dismissed thc said interlocutory application. There are no merits in the present Civil Revision Petrtion and the same is liable to bc dismissed

12. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There sha-Il be no order as to costs.

13. Interim order ald miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition sha,ll stand closed. \ / /'|RUECOPy/ / SDl- AHMEDABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICEI{ To,

1. Thc junior Civil ludge_cum_Judicial Magistrate of First Class at AIair. 2. Onc CC to Sri S.Ash;.k.Ku;;r, nar".r,?'rcipUCf 3. onc CC to sri Mohd,rsta;;ffi;#;;;fi;;** Iopucl 4. one cc to sri Aziz Hussain, ea"o.ui" iopuif 5. One CC to Sri Mohin Sharief, ea"""ul'1onuc1 6. Two CD Copies. JCKlABK @'A I 1PE STA]E 1 3 rtB 2026 l.-1 .k \) z ,,) , HICH COURT DATED 25/09/2t)25 CRDER CRP.No.2720 of 2023 Dismissing the C.R.P. n.ithout costs