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 of all further proceedings in os No. 92 oI 201lon the file of iionble principaisenior civil Judge, Nizamabad . Counsel for the Petitioner :SRl. T V KALYAN SINGH Counsel for the Respondents: None ifre Court made the following: ORDER HON'BL]II IJRT JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYAN,{ ALISI{ETTY Clrvll, REVISION PETITIONNo.2986 OF 2024 ORDER: Assail:rr15 the validity and legality of the ord,,:r dated

16.07 .202t' f 'rssed by the Principal Senior Civil J udge at Nizamaba<l in tA.No.254 of 2023 in OS.No.92 of 2017, this Civil Revision Pet tion is filed.

2. By the impugned order, the trial Cor.rrt allo,ired the applicatior :'rled under Order VI Rule l7 CPC praying the Court to permit ttre pirLintiff to amend the plaint and allorv the plaintiff to pay balance <xlurt fee regarding recovery ofpossession.

3. He'alc liri T.V.Kalyan Singh, leamed counsel fcr pt:titioner No represi'ntation on behalf of the respondents despite s::rvice of notice or th,:nr therefore, the matter is being disposed o1' basing on the materizr.l p. a.ced on record.

4. The rer ision petitioner is defendant No.2, respondr:nt No.1 herein is pteirtiff and respondent No.2 herein is defendan: No.1 in the suit trelcl'c the trial Court. For convenience, the partier; will be hereinafter re lerred to as arraved in the suit.

5. Briel factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiff fiLed a suit for declararic,rL and consequential perpetual injunction in r,.)spect of 2 LNA, J CRP.No.2966 of 2021 the suit schedule property and further, for cancellation of GpA document bearing No.3150/2015 dated 1g.03.2015 executed by plaintiff in favour of defendant No.l and for declaration of registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.4l6212015 and 567712017, dated 18.04.2015 and 05.Og.2Ol7, respectively, in respect of the suit schedule property as null and void and not binding on the plaintiff. 6. The defendants entered appearance in the suit. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid application. She averred that during the pendency ofthe suit, defendant No.2, in collusion with defendant No. l, filed false criminal case against her, vide CC.No.873 of 2017, however, the criminal Court found her not guilty ofthe offences punishabre under Sections 427,44g and 506 IPC and acquitted her and on appeal, the said judgment was confirmed by the High Court, vide judgment dated 26.02.2020 in Crl.A.No.36 of 2019. The plaintiff further averred that after filing of criminal case, defendant No.2 has got her arrested and immediately, defendant No.2 illegally occupied the suit schedule property. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff prayed the Court 3 LNA, J CRP No.2t)86 oI2021 to amen,l lirr: plaint for including the relief of recc'very of possession o1".tLe suit schedule property. 7 . Defe'n<liurt Nos.l and 2 filed separate counters resii;ting the applicatir)n and contended that the plaintiff executt:d GPA document be,tring No.3150/2015 dated 18.03.2015 in flvour of defendan t llr.l and also executed registered sale deeds bearing document fJcs.416212015 and 5677/2017, dated 18'04.2015 and

05.08.2011', n:spectively, in respect of the suit schedule property and ph1'sical possession was also delivered' Therelcre, the applicati,rr ;r; devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissec.

8. ThLe tr,tLl Court vide impugned order allowed the ap'plication by primaritS' observing that as per Article 65 of LimitatiorL Act, the timitatio,r pr:'iod for filing suit for recovery of posst:ssion of immovabl,: ln operfy or any interest based on title is J2 y::ars. The plaintiff hrrs, li led suit for declaration of title in respect o I the suit schedule Fr,rf,€rrty and after a period of 5 Yz years fro:n the date of filing of tr,: s.rit, she frled the application for amendn.rent of the prayer irr :tLr: plaint stating that she was illegally disposlressed by the defe nrlant s fiom the suit schedule property and .:herr,:fore, the same is rvitl-.in the period of limitation as prescribed undr,:r Article --a--l \'- 4 LNA, J CW.No.2986 of 2021 65 of the Limitation Act. The triar court further observed that no injustice would be caused to the defendants if the application is allowed and the rights of the parties would be decided only after full-fledged trial and accordingly, allowed the application. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant No.2 filed the present Revision Petition.

9. Leamed counsel for the revision petitioner/defendant No.2 contended that the trial Court erroneously allowed the application without properly appreciating the facts and the legal position. He further contended that the plaintiff filed the suit for decraration of title suppressing the fact that she was not in possession of the suit schedule property. He further contended that according to the plaintiff she was dispossessed from the suit schedule property in the year 2018, whereas the application is filed after 5 /z years of filing of the suit without explaining the delay for the same. Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.

10. Admittedly, the plaintiff fited the suit for declaration and consequential perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property and further, for cancellation of GpA document bearing i 5 LNA, J CRP.No.2\tE6 oJ 2024 No.3l50/:2C,1j; clated 18.03.2015 executed by plaintiff in firvour of defendant },tro ' and for declaration of registered sale deeds bearing documenl 1.,1cs.,116212015 and 567712017, dated 18.(t4.2015 and

05.08.2017 i:;oectively, in respect of the suit scheduLle F,roperty, as null arrd r.o r[ and not binding on the plaintiff. tt is the specific case of the ptairrtiff that after filing of the suit, a criminal c,ase was filed agai'rst hr:r', she was arrested and in the meanwhile, dr:rfendant No.2 illegatll c,ccupied the suit schedule propert) anr1 he rce, the applicatic,n ftrr amendment of the plaint to include the prayer of ) \ relief of leoo'/rry of possession of the suit schedule pr-ope lty. The trial Couft b,'r :eferring to Article 65 of the Limitation Act has I ) allowed the s,ajc application.

11. Tht: period of limitation for frling a suit for reccrvery of possessio n of irnmovable property is 12 years either witt title or without titl:. In the present case, admittedly, the plaintiff hled the applicaticn. :r,:,:king amendment of the plaint to include the r.elief of recovery ol ptssession of the suit schedule propefi)', a{'ter 5 lz years from fi: date of her alleged dispossession from the suit schedule )roE,€rty, which is within the limitation periocl of :2 years as prescribeld r, rLder Article 65 of the Limitation Act. 'l'[ere l.ore, the 6 LNA, J CRP.No.2986 of 2021 trial Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in allowing the application and it has rightly observed that the rights of the parties will be decided after full_fledged trial of the suit. 12. In the light of the above facts and the legal position, this Civil Revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

13. Accordingly, this Revision petition is dismissed. 14. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed No costs. i i l i I l I To, //TRUE COPYII Sd/. P. CH. NAG ABHUSHAMBA DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 2 3 The Principal Senior Civil Judge, at Nizamabad One CC to SRt. T V t(ALyAN STNGH Advocate [OpUC] Two CD Copies TUgh ?p- * I ./ l,C \ rrt:';' r(\ !ii ir 7 ,t lN 2025 ,\5 ..-- r, .,,, , HIGH COURT : l. i t T F-D :21 I 03 I 202!i ORDER CRP.No.2986 ol 2O?4 DISMISSING THE: C.Fl.F'. (o- 6 a