The High Court · 2025

I[e qHMq REPTD., by its Deputy Commissioner, Sri Surender Reddy, L B Nagar Circle No.4. ' ...Petitioners/Respondents/Respondents ... RespondenUAppellant

2. The Hasthinapuram North Extension Residents Welfare A; ociation, Rep. by its Secretary. ... RespondenURespondent No.1 1(included as 3d party at Apyr, liate Stage) 3. Pindi Linga Reddy, S/o Pulla Reddy. 4. P.Srinivas Reddy, S/o Putta Reddy. 5. Pindi Madhukar Reddy, S/o Late p. Venkat Reddy (Respondent No.s is Not Necessary party) ..Respondents/Respondents/Respo n lents No.1,3 & 13 lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under section 'r51 of cpc praying that in the cir( rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court n ay be pleased to suspend the order daled 0410712023 on Memo S.R No. 1481 o 2023 in A.S. No. 77 of 2O19 passed by the llnd Additionat District judge, R.R.Dir; lict at L.B.Nagar, during pendency of the present revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl MEREDDY TEJASWINI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI SRINIVAS RAO pACHIil A (sc FoR GHMC) Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI CHALAKANI VENKAT''ADAV The Court made the following: ORDER :-'+'-.'- THE HON'BLE WSTICE B.R.MADIIUSUDHAN RAO cruL REI/ISIOI{ PEIITIOil NO.3444 0F 20.23 ORDER: 1 . The present Civil Revision petition is frled to set aside the order dated 04.O7 -2023 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Memo SR.No. l4g9 of 2O23 in A.S.No.77 of 2OL9.

2. Petitioners herein are the respondent Nos. 2, 4, 2,9, S, lO, 12 and 14, respondent No.l herein is ttre appellant, respondent Nos.2 to 5 herein are the respondent Nos. 11, 1,3 and 13 in A.S.No.77 of 2019.

3. Respondent No.t herein - Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (for short GHMCJ has filed an appeai belore rhe Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar uide A.S.No.77 of 2019 against the peLitioners and respondenr Nos. 2 to 4 herein aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1902 of 2O08 dated 17.06.20II. During the pendenc_v of the appeal, respondent No. 1l therein - Hastinapuram North Extension Residents Welfare Association, represented by irs Secretary has {iled a Memo S.R.No. 14g9 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2Ol9 on 16.03.2023 contending that association has approached 2/a BRMR, J CRP.No.3444 of 2023 the High Court and they obtained status- luo order in W.P.No.33l 16 of 2012. Basing on the said menr , the Appellate Court has passed an order uide Memo SR.No. 1z g9 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2Ol9 dated 04.OT.2023, holding that ; atus_quo order is passed until further orders. The appellant ,t mnot proceed. Hence memo is upheld.

4. Petitioners herein - respondent Nos. 2, 4, T, t S, 10, 12 and 14, have challenged the said order in the preserr Civil Revision Petition.

5. [rarned counsel for the petitioners submits t I at the order of the Appellate Court is vitiated by various irre lularities and surmises and the Memo SR.NO.1489 of 2023 is nc _ maintainable and devoid of merits, u,hich is contrary to lau,, cleadings and judgment on record in O.S.No. 1902 of 2OO8 dated , .O6.2011. The Appellate Court [ailed to appreciace the fact that Hastinapuram North Extension Residents Wellare Association, rep: esented by its Secretary, is not a party in the Trial Court (O.S.N o l9O2 of 200g) and the order came to be passed without applyinp; iudicial mind. The Appellate Court lailed to appreciate the lct that the petitioners herein have filed W.p.No.28589 of 2O2,)_ and, obtained status quo orcier in l.A.No. I of 2022 on |4.OZ.2O2 2 against the official respondents therein in rcspect of the sch€ lule pr_operty BRMR, J CRP-No.3444 ot 2023 shown in O.S.No. l9O2 of 2OO8 and the Appellate Court committed error in allowing the memo. In support of her contention, she relied on a decision in the case of Syed Yousuf Ali Vs. Mohd. Yousuf and anotherl and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

6. Respondent No.1 - GHMC has freld counter and contended that the land claimed by the petitioners is a Government land and the Hastinapuram North Extension Residents Welfare Association, did not made any attempt to occupy the property. The petitioners have high handedly demolished the boundary wall of the public park with the help of anti-social elements and JCB and that they have lodged a complaint against the petitioners for damaging the compound wall worth of Rs.3,O0,00Ol- on 20.O9.2OOa, the Police, L.B.Nagar has registered a case in Crime No.888 of 2008 under Sec[ions 447 and 427 of IPC. HUDA authorities have tentativcly approved layout plan in Survey Nos.25 to 29 and 58 (part) ot Karmanghat vlllage uide permit No.3792 I MP2 I HUDA/ 1994, dated

25.lO .1994 and as per the said tentative layout, the land is admeasuring Ac.2l-2O guntas. Revision petitioners failed to shou' sufficient causes or reasons for allowing the present Civil Revision Petition and prayed to dismiss the present Civil Revision Petition-

7. Heard learned counsel, perused the record. ' zoto (z) lLt ssu (s.s) 4/a BRMR, J CRP.No.3444 of 2023

8. Now the poin[ for consideration is: whethcr the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court in Memo SR. \ :.14g9 of 2O2S in A.S.NO.77 of 2Ol9 suffers from any illegality or )erversity, if so requires interference of this Court?

9.1 P.Linga Reddy, p.Srinivas Reddy, p.Dir nodar Reddy, P.Venkat Reddy and petitioner Nos.l, 2, 5, 3, 4 ani 6 herein have filed suit for perpetual inj unction restraining the rr: pondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein who are the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 i: r the suit from interfering with the land bearing Survey Nos.25, 16, 22, 2g, 29 admeasuring Ac. l -O7 guntas situated at Karme nghat Village, Saroor Nagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District with boundaries as East - Park, West - plot Nos.240 and 237, North - plot Nos.257 and 258 and South - Land in Surve_v. No.5g part. .os.l

9.2 Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein _ defendant I and 2 in the suit have filed their u.ritten starement. The pJai rtiffs have not pressed the suit against delendant No.2 _ The Hastir apuram North Extension Residents Welfare Association (responder i No.2 herein) which is recorded in paragraph No.9 of the Judgment in O.S.No. 19O2 of 2008, dated 17.06.2O1t.

9.3 The learned principal Senior Civil Judge, ?anga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, H_vderabad has dccreed the sui as,prayed for s/8 BRMR, J CRP.No-3444 of 2023 uide judgment and decree dated 17.06.2011 in O.S.No.19O2 of 200E.

10. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.19O2 of 2008, dated 17.06.20ll, respondent No.1 herein - GHMC represented by its Deputy Commissioner, LB Nagar Circle No.4, hled an appeal before the District Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar and the same is numbered as A.S.No.77 of 2019. Hastinapuram North Extension Residents Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary, is shown as respondent No.l 1 therein.

11. During the pendency ol the appeal, respondent No.11 therein who is the respondent No.2 herein filed a memo uide Merno Sr.No.1489 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2Ol9 stating that "In the above mentioned case GHMC has made the Hastinapuram North Extension Association as respondent No.11 and thereafter Association engaged me as counset, I hled vakalat in this Appeal. In l,ower Court Respondent Nos. I to 11 made Association as party, after filing the written statement, plaintiffs have not pressed the suit against the Association, they approached Hon'ble High Court and obtained status quo order in W.P.No.331 16 of 2Ol2 proof of the copy is here with enclosing. Hence this memo." BRMR, J CRP.No.3444 of 2023 The learned Appellate Court has taken the memo ,n hle and held t-hat since status quo order is passed until furt rer orders, the appeal cannot be proceeded.

12.1 Respondent No.2 herein Hastinapuram \ crth Extension Residents Welfare Association, represented by it: Secretary has ftled W.P.No.33116 of 2072 before the erstwhilr High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad anc they obtained status quo order in respect of land admeasuring \c.1-07 guntas situated in survey Nos.25 to 29 and 58(P) of Karmrr rghat Village as per the lay out sarictioned in permit No.3792/MD 2IHUDA/te94, dated 25.10.1994 uide W.P.M.P.No.42 164 ci 2012, dated t9.LO.20t2.

12.2 ln the above said writ petition GHMC is shou. r as respondent No.l and petitioner Nos.l to 6 herein and othe r I are shown as respondent Nos.2 to 12.

13. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have also hlt,r W.P.No.28589 of 2022 before the High Court in respect of the Iar cl admeasuring Ac. 1-07 guntas in survey Nos.25 to 29 situated rt Karmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy Distri: and they also obtained status quo uide I.A.No. I of 2022 da[eci 1r . )7.2022. ln the above said writ petition State, District (l,r Iector, GHMC represented ty Commissioner, Deputy Coor -r issioner and BRMR, J CRP.No.3444 of 2023 Assistant Commissioner and SHO, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District were made as parties.

14. The only point arises in this Civil Revision Petition is that whether the Appellate Court can pass judicial order on a Memo hled by the party?

15. In Syed Yousuf Ali's case' it is held that no judicial order can be passed based on a memo fiied by the party either under Code of Civil Procedure or under Civil Rules of Practice. The purpose of receiving the memos by the Courts is only to receive certain intimation pertaining to the lis pending before it

16. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that similar order is passed by the learned II Additionai District Judge, Ranga Reddy in Memo SR.No.1490 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2019, dated O4.O7.2023, against which the petitioners have filed CRP No.3441 of 2023 and which came to be allowed by this Court on o4.o4.2025. L7. In view of the ratio laid down in Syed Yousuf Ali's case, tJris Court is of the view that the order passed by the Appellate Court in Memo SR.No. 1489 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2Ol9 dated O4.O7.2023 is unsustainable and the same is liable [o be set aside. BRMR, J CRP No 3444 of 2023

18. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is allov ed. The order dated 04.O7.2023 passed by the II Additional Distr < t Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar in Memo SR.No.l,l, ;9 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2019 is set aside. There shall be no or: lr as to costs. Interim orders if any stands vacated. Pendirl miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. SD/.M.NAGAMANI ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR / /ffRUE COPY// I ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The llAdditional District Judge, R.R.District, at L.B Nag;r 2. One CC to SRt MEREDDY TEJASW|N|, Advocate [OpUo 3. One CC to SRI CHALAKANI VENKAT YADAV, Advocate I )pUCj 4. One CC to SRI SRtN|VAS RAO PACHWA (SC FOR GHtu, )) Advocate 5. Two CD Copies loPUCl h ADK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0711012025 I ORDER CRP.No.3444 ot 2023 o O ( * ilE S14 ! / J A:r 2[28 ''i'; '. ;>' ALLOWING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS eh1 Q t