The High Court · 2025

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 stay all further proceedings, pursuanl to the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.8 of 2024 dated 13 N4arch 2025, on lhe flle of lll Additional District and sessions Judge, Medchat Malkajgiri District, Kukatpally which confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1733 of 2022 (OLD OS No. 263 of 20'18) dated 04.08.2023 on the file of the Ill Additional Junior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkaigiri Distrlct at Kukatpally, pending disposat of the second a ppea I. Counsel for the Appellants : Sri Raja Gopallavan Tayi Counsel for the Respondent : K.Krishna The Court made the following : JUDGMENT a) The Hon'ble Smt. Iustice Rcrtukal( ara Second A eal No.338 of 2025 ud ment: Hcard Sri Raia Gopallar.,an Tayi, leam: 1 counsel itrr the appcllarrts and Sri I( iftishna, learned c,t rnsei for thc respondent. on tl'rc qucrstion of adrnission. Perus: I tl-rc recorcl. a 'I'his is a Sccond appeal preFerred aglt is1.ed [',' t[]e impugned judgment and decree dated 13.03.2(l.l r in A.S.No.8 ctf 2021 o1r the file of thc III Additional I risttict Judgc, N{edchal-Malkajgiri District at I{ukatpally, ct nfilning tl.re .f udsmcnt and clecree clatcd 04.08.2023 in O.S.Nc 1133 of 2022 (()ld O.S.x-o.263 of 2018) on the fie of the II Additional Junior (iivii ] uclge, N'Icclchal-Nlaikajgiri District ar r(ukatpally. -) 'l'hc brief [acts o[ the case ir] e that the respondent/pLaintiff filed suit for evictior against the appellants/cleiendants with respecr to suit scht iule propcrt\I consisting of sl-rop bcaring No.108, situated r t Padmar.athi t I I I \ 2 Plaza, Opp.I{ukatpall1. Housing Board, Hyderabad widr phnth area adme asuring 400 S[t. together r.vith common area boundcd br' Ilasr: (lorridor, V/cst: l(oad, North: Shop No.109, South Shop No.1 07. The appellants herern we rc scn ecl t irh surunons and they made appearance before thc Trial Court 1'l-rcreafter, filcd written statement but failecl cross c\anarnc rvitness IrV71 and also did not adduce cirher documenran- or orai evidence. 'I'hus, on thc basis of the evidcncc adducecl br the respondent herein, the suit was decree d direcring the appellants herein to vacatc the shop r.l,ithtn onc monrh fror-rr tlre date oF judgment. Aggrier-ed by the same, rhe F-irst Appeal is preferred ro se t aside the judgment of the f'rial Court.

1. Upon hearing both the counsel, the Fust Appellate Court dismissed the appeal conluming the judgment of rhe Triai Court as there was admission of jural relationship of Iandlord and tenant and execution of Leasc Deed dated

20.06.2011. Exception is taken to the fact that the appcllants V hercin did not cross cxamine PW1 and clicl rot cnter the r.vitness box to srlpport their r-ersion. The First .\ rpcllate Coutt helcl that t'hcn tl'rcrc is no oral evidencc 1( suPport the pleadings, r.r'hen thcr-c is er.rdencc on the part of t re rcspondent herein rn terrns of oral and documentary er.itl: rcc, s'hen the evrdencc clinchinglv c-.tablishes that there is a I ndlord-tcnant relationship orr thc basis of Lease Decd dated , ).0(r.201 t, thc rcspondcnt l.rcreir-r is clrtitlccl to rhe relicf of grant ng er.tction oI thc appcilants. Aggr.ievcd br, the concurrent .i rdings of the 'I'rial Court and the lrirst Appellate Court, thc : resent Second Appeal is tLlcd raising the following substandt questions of 1a\\': 1) Vlhcther the decree passed b1, lowcr :ourt without alforclins suFficient opporlunity to rbe defendant tcr clelencl ard adduce er.idence is sustainat I : and violates principle s of natural justice? 2) \y'hcther the courts belorv were justified ir decreeing the suit solclr, on the 1ru5i5 , rf unchallenged evi lence, without 4 indepcndendy veriS,ing the veraciry of the plainriffs claims ? 3) \\'hcrher, in rhe absence of a frarned issue legarding rhe r.alidirr, and serwice of norice undcr Section 106 ot tlre 'I'ransfer oi Propcrty Act, amounts to proccdural irregulariq' and render invalid decree andJudgement? .1) \\'hether t[.rc lower court and appellatc court errec] in holding the a;rpeilants responsible for proccdural lapses that wcrc entt-el1, duc to the negligcnce of the cngaged counsel? 5) Whether thc dismissal of the first appeal u'itl.rour appreciating facts and evidcnce is perversc and contrary to larv? 6) That thc courts belorv failed to exercise judicial discretion in a reasonable manner, thereby causing grave miscarriagc of justice ro tht: appeliant, who has a merir()rious delcnse? 7) That the appellate courr failed to frame points for deterrnination as required under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, thcrcby rcndering its judgment unsusrainable in law? I l f 8) '1'he Appellants initialh' f,1ed Copv Apphcr rion No.1687 of 2025 or 21/03/2025, seekins ccrtifie( copies of thc jLrdtn-rcnt :.urcl clccrcc. Fiorvcvcr, rhe cettifit 1 copt, of the judgment rvas scn'cd or 24/0412025, tl r dcclee copv was not readv at tl-rat time. ConsccluentJr, r rc .\ppellants lrlcd a ilesh (-opy Application No. 31i1 ot 2025 on 23/(16/2()25 frrr the ccrtifled copv o[ thc ]ecree, r'vhich rvas issucd onh on 1l /0 r- /2025?

5. .\morrs tire above allcgcd substantial c1r,r stions of law, thc lcarnecl courrscl krr thc appellants soiely re t:d upon non frarnng of ar-r ]S SLTC lu'ith respect to ser-vice oi notice undet Section 106 oi tire -I'ransFer oiPropcrrv Act. ,\,: ordiog to the appcllants, non-franrtng of an issue u,ith tespcct to s cr-r.ing of notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Propcr , Acl amounts to irreguiaritl and therefrrre, thc judgmcnt and c { crec rendered are invalid.

6. ()n tlis count, this Court is o[ the conr i lered opinion that sen ice of notice under Sectinn 106 r I 'I'ransfer o[ froperq' Act ancl validity of sen ice are issues : I facts, rvhich \ 6 cannot be considcred in a Second Appeal. A Sccond ,\ppcal contemplates considcratior-r of sr-rbstantial questions oI larv ar-rd Ilot IICrC qtrCStions of larv

1. \\'itl.r re{rard t() the issuc of consideratior'r of second appeal, thc Hor-r'lrlc Suprernc Courr oF lndia in Hemavathi v. v. Hombegorx'da' has hclcl that the High Court can cntcrtain a rcgular scc()nd appcal puleh- on a "substantial" question of lau, not even a question oF las' or a qucstion of fact and tl-rat it is onlt' when substantial questions of law would arise in a casc that the High CoLrrt can cntertain a rcgular second appeal. It is further held that i[ no substantial question oF law arose in the cxse then thc appcal could not havc been entertained and ought to havc been disrnissed at tl.rc stagc of admission. 8 Sincc thc appellants failcd to adduce evidence, the de fense take n b1, rhem in rhe rvritten statemeflt becomes a nLrllitv and there[orc, there is no locus to raise any question of (2025) 5 SCC 442 1 1t\\- ()l substar'rtiaI qucsti()n of lrlur,. J'hus, rhe i,r (:onc.] ,\ppcal lacks rncrits ancl is liablc ro be ciisrnisscci () ln tlrc lcsr-rlt. thc Scr_oncl ,\ppcal is dL. ris-sctl at rhe stagc of admissLon. No costs \Iis cclllr rt'o us applic:rrions., ii anr,, pcr .line irr this Scconcl \ppcal. shall srand closcrl \ \ SD/-F GOWRI SHANKAR trl PUTY REGISTRAR I -./ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 4 5 Svs/PSL The lll Additional District Judge cum Additional Metropr tan Sessions Judge Cum Principal Family Court Judge Medchal Malkajgiri Drs -ict, Kukatpally lll Additional Junior Civil Judge cum XIV Additional i\4,tropolitan Megistrate Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukalpally_ [with recordsj One CC to Sri Rajagopatlavan Tayi, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri K.Krishna, Advocate [OPUCI Two CD Copies o. t HIGH COURT DATED:1710912025 JUDGMENT SA.No.338 of 2025 a\ o O 0 6 :tB 2[?[ t I -t \ 1 '^. r ',-' DISMISSING THE SECOND APPEAL AT THE STAGE OF ADMISSION {