Memo and permitting to withdraw the statement of not press against v. I,NA,.'

1. The GHMC Reptd.,, by its Deputy Commissioner' Sri.Surender Reddy' L B Nagar circle No 4. ...RES,.NDENT/A'.ELLANT

2. The Hasthiriapuram North Extension Residents Welfare Association,, Rep by its Secretary.

3. Pindi Linga Reddy,, S/o. Pulla Reddy 4. P.srinivas Reddy,, S/o. Pulla Reddy q Prndi Madhukar Reddy, S/o Late p Venkat Reddy R5 is not necessary party lA NO: 1 OF 2023 ...RESPONDENTS/ /RESPONDENTS 11,1,3&13 Petition upder section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in . the affidavit filed in support of the peiition, it " Hign Court may be pleased to suspend the order dated. 04.07.2023 0n rraemo s."R. No 1a90 tizolgl. ;.s. frlo_lZ or 2019 passed by the Hon,bte It Addt District Judge, ni-Oirlri"i rt L. B Nagar, during pendency of the present revision petition. Counsel for the petitioners: M/s. MEREDDY TEJASWINI Corinsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI CHALAKANT VENKAT YADAV The Court made the following: ORDER ) HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY 'CML REVISION PETITION No.3441 ot 2023 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the Order dated

04.07.2023 in Memo S.R.No. 1490 of 2023 in A.S.No.77 of 2019 on the file of the leamed II Additional District Judge Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

2. The petitioners herein are plantilf Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7 ,9 and l0 in the suit and respondent Nos. 2, 4,5,7,9 and l0 in the appeal. Petitioner Nos.7 and 8 are respondent Nos. 12 and 14 in the appeal. Respondent No.1 herein is defendant No. I in the suit and appellant in the appeal. Respondent No.2 herein is defendant No.2 in the suit and respondent No.11 in the appeal. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are plaintiff Nos. I and 2 in the suit and respondent Nos.l and 3 in the appeal. Respondent No.5 is not necessary party. For convenience, hereinafter the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit

3. The brief factual matrix of the case is that the plaintiffs filed O.S.No. 1902 of 2008 seeking perpetual injunction restraining the 2 LN4. / CRP No..t14 t of )Dl \i defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. It appears that during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have not pressed the suit against defendant No.2 i.e., Hasthinapuram North Extension Residents Welfare Association, (for short, ,Association.) and the said suit was decreed by the trial Court vide order dated 17.06.2011. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.l GHMC filed A.S.No.77 ol 2019, in which defendant No.2 Association was also rnade pafty as respondent No. ll, though the suit was not pressed against defendant No.2 Association by the plaintiffs. When the said discrepancy was pointed out by defendant No.2 Association, defendant No. I filed Memo SR.No. I490 of 2023 seeking permission for wirhdrawing the statemcnt of not press filed against defendant No.2 Association and the said Memo was accepted and upheld vide Order dated,04.07.2023 permitting defendant No. I GHMC to withdraw the statement oF not press against defendant No.2 Association. Aggrieved by the same, the Civil Revision petition is filed by the petitioners herein.

4. Heard Ms.Tejaswini Mereddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners; Sri Srinivasa Rao pachwa, leamed Standing Counsel for I I LNI, J CRI' No l14l of 202] GHMC appearing for respondent No. I and Sri Chalakani Venkat Yadav, leamed counsel for respondent No.2

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit delendant No.2 filed I.A.No.364 of 2010 in O.S.No.l902 of 2008 under Order I Rule l0 of CPC seeking to implead the proposed delendant as defendant No.2 in the suit and the same was dismissed vide Order dated 20.04.2010 and the said dismissal order was not challenged thereof. However, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiffs have not pressed the suit against defendant No.2 Association and the said suit was decreed by the trial Court

6. Leamed counsel for the petitioners would lurther submit that having not pressed the suit against defendant No.2 Association, the defendant No.l GHMC filed a Memo to withdraw the statement of not press and the Appellate Court has committed error in accepting the Memo and permitting to withdraw the statement of not press against defendant No.2 Association.

7. Leamed counsel for the petitioners relied upon thejudgment of erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Syed Yousuf AIi Vs 4 I,NA,.' CRP No.344 t of2023 ..1 I.Mohd. Yousuf and otherst, wherein it is held that no judiciat Order can be passed based on memo. Filling of memo is not contemplated either under Code ol Civit Procedure or under Civil Rules of Practice The purpose of receiving memcs by the Courts is only to receive certain intimation pertaining to the /rs pending before it. 'Iherefore, the impugned order dated 04.01 .2023 passed by the Appellate Court is unsustainable and the same is Iiable to be set aside

8. Leamed Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.l has not disputed the facts of the case and the impugned order passed by the appellate Court. However, he sought liberty to avail the renredies as available under law

9. Leamed counsel for respondent No.2/defendant No.2 Association would submit that the valuable rights of the Association are not verified. The plaintiffs are not the owners and possessors o[ the land in Sy Nos.25,26,27,28 and 29 admeasuring Ac. l-17 guntas situated at Karamahghat Village, Saroomagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Since they have already sold their land to the Members of Association, there is no open land except the land which was allotted ' c.R.P.t'to.479q of 201s ) 5 LN1,.I CRP No l11l ol2021 to the suit as misconceived. Therefore, defendant No.2 Association is necessary pa(y and he further contended that the Appettate Court has rightly allowed the Memo vide Order dated 04.01 .2023 and no grounds are made out to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Court

10. On perusal of the record, it discloses that initiatly suit was hled by the plaintift-s against defendant Nos.l and 2. Therealter, defendant No.2 Association filed I.A for impleading proposed delendant as delendant No.2, but the same was dismissed and was not challenged thereof. However, defendant No.2 Association was not pressed in the suit. Aggrieved by the same, defendant No.1 GHMC filed Appeal Suit and during the pendency of appeal suit, defendant No.l GHMC has tiled a Memo seeking to withdraw the statement of not press. The filling of appeal by defendant No.l GHMC including the name of delendant No.2 Association is contrary to the decree passed by the trial Court and the same is impermissible. I l. Following the principles laid down by erstwhile High Coqrt of Andhra Pradesh insyed YousufAli(one cited supra), the order passed on Memo cannot be pressed. Therefore, the appellate Court has / I I , \ -^'t I 6 LNA..i CRP No 3441 o{2023 committed error in interpretating the memo and passing orders to defendant No.l GHMC to withdraw the statement of not press against defeildant No. 2 Association.

12. In view of the above lacts and circumstances of the case and also the ratio laid down by this Court in Syed yousuf Ali, (one cited supra), this Court olthe opinion that the order passed by the appellate Court is untenable and the same is liable to be set-aside.

13. Accordingly, the order under revision is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Pctition is atlowed. However, it is made clear that respondent No. I GHMC is at liberty to avail all the remedies available under law, if so pernrissible. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending rnisccllaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T.TIRUMALA DEVI PUTY REGISTRAR D 5 To, 'I . The ll Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar (with Secrtou oFFtcER records)

2. One CC to M/s. Mereddy Tejaswini, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Chalakani Venkat Yaav, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Plp/gh 1 E- I I HIGH COURT DATED:081/0412025 ( q /J IE1 €r \ c. AI BP 2025 (\r t I ps€ * 9O ORDER GRP.No.3441 of 2023 ALLOWING THE C.R.P. 6 qV