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 stay all further proceedings in the main suit vide O S.No 395712022 on the file of the ll Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad pending disposal of main Revision petition in the interest of Justice. Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. Guma Rani Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3O8O of 2O23 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking the following relief. "to set-aside the Order dated 04-08-2023 passed in I.A.No.1772 of 2023 in O.S. No.3957/2022 on the file of the II lunior Civil ludge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad by allowing the present revision petition...."

2. Heard Smt. G.Uma Rani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court has committed grave error in dismissing I.A.No.1772 of 2023 to reject the plaint and it has exercised its jurisdiction illegally and there is material irregularity in passing the order. The learned trial Court has passed an order based on surmises and conjectures and the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition by holding that there is no landlord tenant relation between the plaintiffs and defendant and also failed to consider the Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.08.2022, which was entered into by the respondents and the son of late Hamid Iqbal Ali, wherein the petitioner is not a party to the said 2 Memorandum of Understanding and the same is n( t binding on him and prayed to set aside the impugned order.

4. Notice sent to learned counsel appearing fo respondent Nos.1 to 3 before the trial Court is served on 01.t,.2025, none appeared.

5. Heard petitioner's counsel and perused the naterials on record.

6. Now the point for consideration is : whether t le impugned order suffers from any perversity or illegality, i so does it requires interference of this Court or not.

7. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the plaintiffs, thc, filed suit in O.S.No.3957 of 2022 for perpetual injunction against the petitioner-defendant, restraining the defendant, l-i ; henchmen, agents, subordinates, GPAs holders from interferinc in the Mulgi forming property bearing shop No.22-7-391/3, opgosite to City Civil Court, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad with boundari:;. B. On perusal of the plaint averments, it is rlentioned in Paragraph No.6, that the defendant (petitioner I erein) atong with his henchmen, agents has developed an evil lye over the suit schedule property with an evil intention trying o dispossess the plaintiFfs (respondents herein) illegally, in ord-"- to grab the (" ,,/ L,. 3 suit schedule property without having any right or title. On

09.09.2022, the defendant (petitioner herein) along with his henchmen came to the suit schedule property and forced the plaintiffs (respondents herein) to pay the rent to him or vacate the office premises and handover the same within one week.

9. It is further stated in the plaint at Paragraph No.7 that on

13.09.2022, the defendant (petitioner herein) along with his henchmen agent and anti social elements came to the suit schedule property and created nuisance and tried to dispossess the plaintiffs (respondents herein) forcefully which led to filing the suit for perpetual injunction.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no cause of action for the respondents- pla intiffs to file the suit. The respondents-plaintiffs has specifically stated in Paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the plaint about the interference of the defendant (petitioner herein) over the plaint schedule property. It cannot be said that there is no cause of action for the respondents- plaintiffs to file a suit, as stated supra, suit is for perpetual injunction, restraining the defendant (petitioner herein) from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule propefty. 4

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner con ended that petitioner is not a party to the Memorandum of l.l lderstanding dated 30.08.2022. The learned trial Court ha:; observed in Paragraph Nos.18 and 19 with regard to Mer orandum of Understanding and rightly held that the petitioner I as not made out of any case to reject the plaint under Order VII iule 11(a). t2. While rejecting the plaint under Order VII R,.r e 11(a), it is the plaint averments which are to be taken into ( onsideration, but no other material filed by the petitioner-defenrl rnt has to be considered. The reasoning of the learned t. al Court in Paragraph Nos.18 and 19 are in proper perspectiv(, the learned trial Court has discussed the points raised by th,l petitioner at length and rightly dismissed the application and rrr interference is called for. Hence, this Civil Revision Petitior is dismissed without costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if ar y, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. SD/- A JAYASREE AS$I STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The. ll Junior Civrt Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabac ( with records if a ny)

2. One CC to SRt G.Uma Rani, Advocate tOpUCI 3 Two CD Copies 'll . l1 l\ i\" A T) I,/ HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 ORDER CRP No.3080 o'i 2023 1i SIA C) 7 J AN 2tl2[ o * I f.sr,r,.l,: r-' I o CIVII- RE\ ISTON PE1'ITION IS DISMISSED WITHOUT CoS'IS I ' / r. l \ i lr'r\ - .--., \t ' ,,.L