The High Court · 2022

I Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited, rep.b,, its President Sri.N4.Ellaiah H,No.4-161, 1st floor, Madhavinagar, Ferozguda Hyderabad Voltas Employees co-op House Building Society Limted, rep.by its Secrelary, Sri K.Srinivas Rao H.No.4-161, 1st floor, IVadhavinagar, Ferozguda Hyderabad ,..PETITIONERS AND

1. The A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Chandravihar Building, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. N.Suryaprakash Rao, S/o.Sri N.Somaiah Employee R/o.SR/259 Sitharam Naoar, Neredmet, Secu nd era bad -500056 ...RESpoNDENrs LA. NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 846 OF 2009) Petition under Section 5 of Llmitation Act praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed n sr-rpport of the petilion, the Hiqh CcLirl rna,,, be oleased io condone the celay of gll da'/s rn frlino the sel-as oe oe: I,-rn s.jck ril set-aside of the orcjer (iated 07-1'1 -2008 passed irr '"t,rA 1.1P SR ND tr,11)aB cf 2 - 'r n WA No. 975 of 2C06 in tne interest of lustrce and ferr play l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 34380 0F 2009) Petition under Order 9 Ruie I R/w. Seclion 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Courl may be pleased to set-aside the Order dated 07.1 1 .2008 papsed rn WAMP(SR) No.46068 of 2007 in W.A.No.975 of 2006 in the rnterest of justice and fair play. Thls petjiron coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon reading the order dated 07.11.2008 in WAN4P(SR) No,46068 of 2007 in W.A.No.975 of 2006 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Narasimha Goud, Counsel for the petitioners in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 in W,A.No.975 of 2006 and of Sri Polavarapu Srinivas, Counsel for Respondent No, 2 in l.A.Nos. 1 &2of 20OO in W.A.No.975 of 2006. l.A.NOs. '1 & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 976 OF 2006 Betwee n : Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited, President Sri.t'/.EIlamaiah H,No.4-161 , 1st floor, Madhavinagar, Ferozguda Hyderabad V6ttas Emptoyees co-op House Building Society Ltd,, rep by its Secretary, Sri K.srinivas'Rao H.No.4-1 61 , 1st floor, Madhavinagar, FerozOuda.l-p$1i?3,i9-, -rep.by 2 AND I -ir'r,,A P C:c:rerati.''e Tlbtrna. Chandravlha ; K S,,ar'.,":it pr i S o Late Sa' K. Rrm.r Rl ''t )t . E-:, '.':r :I .t ar'a;a'. 1-'1; Ji:'-'li,':,.1-iilC3l' r B uild ing. Nampally. Hyderabad Retirecl Employee R/o.Plot RESPONDENTS r.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 850 O F 2009) Petition under Section 5 of Limltation Act praytng that in the clrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed ln support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the detay of '1 09 days in filing the set aside petition seeking set aside the order dated 07-11-2008 passed in wAlvP SR No. 46065/2007 in WA No. 976/2006 in the interest of justice and fair play. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009 (WAMP. NO: 34383 oF 2009) Petition und er Order 9 Rule I R/w. 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 set-aside the Order dated 07,11.2008 passed in WAMP(SR) No.46065 ol 2007 in W.A.No.976 of 2006 in the interest of justice a nd fa ir play, This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon reading the Order dated 07.11.2008 in U/A|\4P(SR) No.46065 o'f 2007 in W.A No.976 of 2006 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Narasintha Goud, Counsel for the petitioners in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 in W.A.No,976 of 2006 and of Sri Polavarapu Srinivas, Counsei for Respondent No. 2 in l,A.Nos. 1 &2 of 2009 in W.A.No.976 of 2006. l.A.NOs. 1 & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 977 OF 2006 Betwee n:

1. Voltas Employees Co.operative Housing Building Society Limited. rep., by its President lr/.Ellaiah, H.No,4-161 , 1st Floor, Madhavinagar. Ferozguda, H ydera bad. 2. Voltas Employees Co.op.House Building Society Limited, rep., by its Secretary, Sri K.Srinivas Rao, H.No.4-161, 1st Floor, lr,4adhavinagar, Ferozguda' Hyderabad ...pETrroNERS AND I , The A.P.Co.operatlve Tribunal, Chandravihar, Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad. Chitti Viswam,, s/o Sri C. S. R.Anjaneyulu, Head Clerk, It//s. Voltas Limited, Hyderabad, r/o Plot No.37, Railway Colony, Picket, Secunderabad-500 026 RESPONOENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF 200 9(WA MP. NO: 848 OF 2009) Petition under Sectlon 5 of Limltatlon Act pray,ng that ln lhe c.r:-rn.r,s1a^,--,js stated rn the a{fidavll file,.1 in support of lrre pelilron the Hrcrr Cr:rrt n'iri i,-. oleased to ccr.rdcne the delay of 9! clays in filin3 the set aslde pelit o,. serk r',r: -':t aside the order dated 07-1 1-2008 passed in $/ANIP SR No. 46826i2C-'r7 in \i.rA i'rrr 977 2006 in the interest of lustice anC fair play. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 3438s OF 2009) Petition under Order g Rule g R/w. Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petitjon, the Hiqh Court may be pleased to set-aside the Order dated 07.1 1 .2008 passed in WAMP(SR) No.46826 o'f 2007 in W.A.No.977 of 2006 in the interest of justice and fair play. This petition coming on for he6rihg, upon perusing the Betition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon reading the Order dated 07.11.2008 in WAIMP(SR) No.46826 of 20A7 in W.A.No.977 of 2006 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Narasimha Goud, Counsel for the petitioners in l.A.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 in W.A.No.977 of 2006 and of Srl Polavarapu Srinivas, Counset for Respondent No. 2 in l.A.Nos. 1 & 2 of 2009 in W.A.No 977 of 2006. l l.A.NOs. I & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 978 OF 2006 Betwee n: Voltas Empiovees Co.operative House Building Society Limited lep by its p#i,ie"i5ti i',l Ettamaiah, H.No.4-161, 1st Floor, lvladhavinagar' Ferozguda' H vd eratlad. VlniiE-J ovees Co.ope'ative House Burrdrng Society Lrmited.. represented l,,tsSecret'a"ySriKSririvasRaoH\o.4-r61'lstFloor'Nladnavrnagar' Fb'ozgucla HycJerabad ,.pETrTtoNERS AND TheA.P,CooperativeTribunalrep.,byChairman,,ChandraviharBuilding' Namoallv, Hvderabad. v^sl;r;;'.r(,i;ni- lto s|,i Subba Ramaiah, Emplovee, rlo 1-2'332819110' irivj Hdniion, Gaianmahal, Domalguda, Hyderabad-5O0 o'n..*.rroror*r. 2 l.A. NO: 1 oF 2009( WAMP. NO: 84I OF 2009) Petition under Section 5 CPC P raying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to condone the delay of (99) days in filing the set aside petition seeking set aside of the order dt.7-11-2OOB passed in wAI/P SR.No.46822 of 2OO7 in W.A.No. 978 of 2006 in the interest of .justice and fair play. l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009 (WAMP. NO: 34387 OF 2 009) Petition under Order 9 Rule 9 R/w. Section 151 CPC praying that in the clrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition the High court riay be pleased to set-aside the order ciated 07.'1 1-2008 passed in WANIPISR) No 46822 of 2oa7 in !v.A No.97B of 2006 in the interest of lustice . '..r f3 | i_rla), '.i-,:i peli cn rlaTnlf g on fcr nearrng upon perrls ng tne petilion and the ti'i ,:,r,,,,1 i r;(l lr sup!c]Tl 1l-erecf anC tlDun reaci n!r tie Orr.]r:r dateC 07 11'2C08 n ';^r'AiL,lPiSRt No..i6B22 of 2Oa7 ln \'V.A No 978 'of 2006 anC upon hearirlE the argurrents of Srr V. Narasimha Goud, COunsel for the petitiorrers in l.A.Nos.'1 & 2 of 2009 ln w.A.No.97B of 2OO6 and of srr Polavarapu Srinivas. counse for' Respondent No. 2 in l.A,Nos. 1 &2ol 2009 in W.A No 978 of 2006' r.A.NO s. 1&2OF 2009 lN W NO: 979 OF 2006 Between: Voltas Employees Co-operative House Building Society Limited, rep.by its H.No.4-161, 1st floor, L4adhavinagar Ferozguda, President Sri Hyderabad 'lvl.Ellamaiah 6

2. Voltas Employees Co-o Sri K.Srinivas Rao Hyderabad pH H.N ouse Building Society Limited, rep.by its Secretary o.4-161, 1st floor, I\ladhavinagar Ferozguda, PETITIONERS AND 1, The A,P.Cooperative Tribunal, Chandravihar Buildings, Nampally, Hyderabad 2. K.Gopala Krishna Murthy, S/o.late Sri K,Sree Rama Murthy Retired Employee R/o.H. No.'1 -2-5411 . Domalguda, Gaganmahal Road, HyderaOu9.*..ooror"r= l.A. NO: 1 OF 2009(WAMP. N O: 847 OF 2009) Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stateC in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleaseC to condone the delay of gg days in filing the set-aside petition seekinr; set-asiCc oi the order dated 07-11-2008 passed in WAI\IP SRNo. 46819 ol 2A07 in \,t/A Nr 979 of 2006 in the interest of juslice and fair play l.A. NO: 2 OF 2009(WAMP. NO: 34391 oF 2009) Pelition under Order g Rule g R/w. 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 set-aside the Order dated 07. 11.2008 passed in WAMP(SR) No.46819 ol 2007 in W.A.No.979 of 2006 in the interest of justice and fair play. This petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon reading the Order dated 07.11.2008 in WAMP(SR) No.46819 of 2007 in W.A.No.979 of 2006 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Narasimha Goud, Counsel for the petitioners in l.A,Nos.1 & 2 of 2009 in W.A.No.979 of 2006 and of Sri Polavarapu Srinivas, Counsel for Respondent No. 2 in LA.Nos. 1 &2 of 2009 in W,A.No.979 of 2006. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER The applications l;e ing I.,,\.No.2 ol 2009 h:rvc been lllcd irr alI tht: \\'rit Appeals for setting aside conrnron order clatcrl 07.11.2008, passecl in thc revierv applications, filcd for revicu' of Common Judgrncnr drucd 27.09.2006 passed in W.A.Nos.971 ro 979 of 2006. The applications being I.A.No.1 of 2009 havc been filed in all the appeals for condonation ofdelay in filing the aforesaid apPlications' On 09.07.2007' the Division Bench has dismissed the applications preferrecl lor condonation of delay in filing the applications to revierv of common jndgment dated 27.09.2006 passed in w.A.Nos.9'.l 4 to 9'79 of 2006. FIon.ever, thc revierv applications were directed to be listed on 30.07.2007. Srrbscr[rcntlr,, bv thc comrron ordcr clatcd 07.11.2008, thc l)ivision Ilclrclr hclti tl)at :rs lLpplications to conclrrtc thc de lav ltar c bcctl tlisll-rissetl .n 09.07.2007, rhc revicu peririons do rr<,rt sttrt'ivc lirr cottsidctatiott :tlltl rcjectcd thc re v ierv pctitions. 'l'he undisptrtcd l:rcts of the case reve:rl that Voltas Empioyees cooperarive l-Iouse Building socier), Limited (for short 'the socicn'') has preferred ,*'rit petitions in the year 2006 being aggrieved by the order dated

28.12.2075, passed by the Andhra Pradesh cooperative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'). The facts further reveal that membership of large number ol me mbers s.as cliscontinued b1' passing resolution bv the Societv nndet thc Andhrzr Pradesl-r Coopcrative Societies Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') ltrcl tl're nrcmbcrs, *.hose mcmbership rvas discontir]ued, havc filecl appcrls bcforc tl.rt' I'ribrrr-r:rl. 'fhe 'I'ribtrnrLl h:ts urrivetl at a firtding of fact tl'r:tt opporttrrtitr ril'ltt.irling \\ its t1()t gire tt to tltc tttcrtrl;crs ltntl in thOSc circttltlstenccs, thtif irl) Ilc ir Is $crt' rtllorYc<1. f hc I lousing SocirtV lrting ;rggrier-cti irr tltc lrlilttcl' .itrllr trll lrcli,l'. this Cotrrt ll' liling vrtri,tus rr rit pctitiorrs i.u., \\'.1).Nos..i57{, 5is3 602s, 6029,(t032 ancl 6053 ol20t)6. Bv comnron orclct datc(l 26.06.2006. thc lerrnctl Single Judge Court has disrnissed all the u'rit petitions. The learncd Single Jr.rclge has atrived at a finding o[' lacrt that opportunit,v was not givcn to the rnernbers and in thosc circurnstanccs, the order of the Tribunal was upheld. Libertl'u,as also granted to the Societv to irsl; lor such inlormation as required under the 1as'from its rnernbers. The Societt'has tl'rcleafter, preferred the present Writ Appcals, rvhich \\,cre clisrnissed br. thc I)ivision Ilerrch lry Conrmor-r Juclgrlent <leted 27,09.2006. Subse qucntlr. r('\-l ir \\' applic:ttions s'cre filccl rvith sonre rlclar'. J his Court has clismissecl thc epplic:rtions tllr corrdon:ltion ol clclrrl Irr' <'olnnron ortlcr tl;rtccl 09.07.2007.'l'ht' s:ritl rrrtlcr rrrrtls'.1s rrnclrr: "\\ . A. \ [. ]).\lo.96J of 1007 tk Ilcv. \\ .,\.\l.I' (SIt).No.-l(r326 ol' 2007, \Y'..,\.NI. P.No.962 ol 2007 & Ito'.\\i.A. \ I. P (SR).No. 1607 1 o i' 2007, \Y.A.NI.P.No.965 of 2007 & Rer'.W.A.NI.P (SR).No.16068 of 2007, \\r.A.l\'LP.No.970 of 2007 & Rev. \Y'.A.ILP (SR).No,46065 of 2007, W.A.M.P.No.969 of 2006 & Rev. W.A.M.P.No.46822 of 2007., W.A,N'LP.No.963 of 2007 & Rev. 7 20 r\ Shri \{. Ramakanth for Shri D.V.Bhadram for the applicanrs. Shri Srinivas Polavarapu for non-applicant No.2. \roltas Enrployecs Cooperative House IluiIding Socict,v Linrireil rrnd another lrarvc llled petitiorrs r-rnder Order XLVII Ilulc 1ol rht () \!.A.I\{. ]'.No.9 64 ol'200'7 may be read in other cascs :rs s'cll' Corlc ,rl' Ci\'il Proccritrrc lbI rcvierv of c0tt.tlrlott itrdgrll('nt (littc(l l;,09.11:)()(, prtssttl itr \\'rit .\PPcal Nrts gj'l ro 979 of 20i)6 'l he| hirvc rrlrir lllcrl \\...\.1[.P.Nos.9(;]. 965. 9;(). 96+, 969 rurtl 96.1 ,rl'2()07 trnclcr \(,(rir,n i oi tlrc I - i I r r i t I t r i r I I I .\t r lirr crltltlotliit irltt ot 9')' 7l' ll"l' 1l I' 110 .rlrtl l-l-J Ll:Lr .' tlcl,lr . \,rrr-irctitiorrc'r' No.-Z lras illctl at'fidrrvit irr \\ 'A \l l)'No 96"l ol l1)Ul r,r r.,r,rt,,rt tl," llritt cr tl-trttle llv tltt rcvitrv pctitiolrers for cortrlo tlit iott of de lav. Slrri Srinivas Polln'arrpr-t s2lvs thitt the afilcl;rvit llled in In the afflclavit filed bv him, Shri K Srinivasa [{ao' Secretan' ol' Voltzts Enrptoyees Cooperative Hotrse Btrildir-rg Societv Limited hus averrc<l that after receiving CoPy of jr.rdgment dated 27.09.2006 on L8.01.2007, he consr.rlted his advocate and decided to file revicr'v pctitions. In paragraphs 5 and 6, he has detailed the reasons for his inabilitv to fii" ..ui.* petitions within limitation' These paragraphs rc lr<l as u tr cle r: ,,5. ln this connectiOn, I subrnit that as rnv fIrther-in-larv u'rts srtffering from cancer tt GT stro Enteric Junction sitrce lzrst seck ol Dccember 2006 and I had to attend on hirn for trclltrnent. He has rlso sttffcrcd a He'trt Attack in the month of N{rrrclr 200?. As strch, mvsclf ancl mv lvilc l)irle to atte n(l to hirn ort irll tltese ditvs alld in srtch circttmstltllce s I corrlcl nrtl lraucl oYcr tlte pirpcrs t{) aIr Aclvocatc trl filc tllc Re'l'ies I'etitiotr i1) this r.gard itlrrrrtd i,ttclv after rcccipt of thc ttrder cop\' ()n 1S 1 2007' I Irrrr tr cr, irr thc trrontlt ttl fiellntitn 20l)7 tlrc Nlrrrragirtg (lorrtrtittec ,rt tlrc Socicn disctlsscd tllrcitcl-llarc tlrc orcle r dt' l- {) ll)(}6 (rt ceirctl {)n lc.l.2l)();) arttl rcst,lrttl trr set li rt lt'grtl rrpirrirrrt irt rltc Itr.ttler. \lter 'rllitlrrrit to lti' 'orrrtstl Sri I Ir'rrl( rr(l,.rr),rtlr [l( (l.l\ ' I srrlrrrrit r.lrrtirtg tlrt 2 rrret'l< ol i\lrrtclt 201); Il( lritlscll ! issirt rl ttitliccs to tlrt L-x (-tlrttutittct \lclttltt:rt 'trtcl srtttgllt ( \l)liLllltlioll lrrttn (lrctrl irl etttrttcttiorr 11 j111 651'ltltrge rtl socict\ le,il.l ,t'irh rrcighborrrirtg sotiett'. Ilc itlso issttctl rtgutrtl'a lirr c,tlling Ocncritl Boclv Noticc hcltl on 3103 2007 antl hc itcttri'rllv prrrticiprtted irt tlrc drtv-to-tlilv affairs ()f the society rrnd also thc b.n.r,il Boclv Nlecting lrr:ld on 31.0.1 2007 TIrr: rbove ficts rcvcirl that the Prcscnt Sccretrlrv filcd thc abovc revic$'pctiti()11 .,r'ith atl falsc pleas without anv 1>roof. Moretlvcr the Managing Committec cxists and is headcd by Presiclent, Vice-Pres iclent, Secretary, Trcasurer and other Committec Nltmbers' In the abscnce of Secretary the President is cmporveretl to file the above revierv petition as per Sec.9 of APCS Act zrnd as per Bye- La*'s of Sociery. Moreover thc Prescnt Secret'.rry h:rs not filcd thc Managirrg Committee Resoltttion saicl to have becn p:rssed in favour of deponent in Revies' Pctition to file thc rtbove revierv pctition and his authoriziltion to Pllrsue thc above Inattcr. No rclcvant rlocurnents filed to provc thc dclav in filing the abovc rcr-icrr' petition. " 1(1 We have heald learned counsel for the partics atrd perrrscd the rcco rd, It is true that the judicial pronouncements of trvo clecades are indicative of [iberal appioach adopted by the Courts in dealing s'ith tl-re applications for condonation of delay, but in the facts of this case, rvc have not felt persuaded to accept the explanation given on behalf of the appellants fot not filing the revie.,v petitions within tlre time. Shri K. Srinivasa Rao has not filed rejoinde r-affid avit to controvelt the avermellls contained in the af{ldavit of respondent No. 2- Chitti Visrvam. Thereforc, the re is nor rcason lor us to discirld ttrc assertion of respondenr No. 2 that the representarive of the Pctirioner had pcrsonallv zrppeared before tl-re learnecl Single Judge on 15.12.2006 :rncl niade the argurnents in V'rit Pc-tition No. 779{ o[ 2004 ancl t]rirt in the rnonth ol I\larch 2007, he had hinrseli scn,ed legul nolicr' anci participatecl irr the rlet:ting ol rhe gcncnrl boclv orr .]1.0.i.1007. I'hc iltiltrle of Shri K. Slinilrsa Rao to lilc rt-'plr' rr) rhc c,rrrrrcl r.rl' rcsl;r.rnclcnt No.2 shris s that thc cxplanatiorr ollcrecl br lrirn Iriclis crcclil;ilitv an<l thc ailme rrr ,rf his tather'-in-llr*' h;rs bccrr cirrrorrl);Lqcrl to canr s\'rrrpatlrv ol tlre Corrrt. lor the [eirsol)s stirtcd al)ovc, \\].A.\I.Ps. art: disnrissrtl. W.A.lI.P.(SR). Nos. 46826, 16071, 16068, -16065, -16ii2l :rrrcl .16819 of 2007 m21v no\\, be listed before the Coutt on 30.07 .2007 ." I'his Court, u,hile disn'rissing the appLications lor condonrrtion of delay, has categoricalll'held that the explanation offered in the rnatter l:rclts credibilirl and the zrilment of f:rtl-re r-in-Iarv has been carnouflagcd to e rrrn s),mpathy of the Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Divisiorr Bencl'r rvas certainly jrrstified in dismissing the applications lor condonation of (lela\. Othenvisc also, libcrtv s'as granted to the Societf in the rnattcr l)\' the lcarnecl Singlc Jrrd.gt:. 'I'hcrcutiet, Ihc rcvieu, applit'ations u,cre rc jccr ctl on 07. 1 l.]008 Aguin, tl)e presclrt app[cations be ing [.A.\o.2 o1' 20()9 lr:rlt' br.cn prel-erred in the r-ear 2009 for rccall of c()mnlon ortlcr clated 07.11.2008 11 plrssed in tl-re rvrit appeals. These appLications are again barrcd bv limitation It is unfortunare thxt even zrfrcr dismissal of the revie$' Pctitions, succcssive rccall pctitions arc being filec1 bv thc Socicn in a clisposecl of n1'.tttcr Al'rrr illing rccrtll petitions in the I'car 2009, no stePs har c Lrten takctt ii,r li.ting ol tltt's:ttuc rill 2022. I lrt re i* r)() error al)l)2trent rttl tlrc f:rce ol'tlle tcr:ortl \\':\rritl)tlllg rellc\\ ol' tlrc tn:tttcr 'fhe Apcx court in the casc of Haridas Das r'. Usha Rani Bank (Smt) ancl Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 78 in paragraph 13 and 20 has held "ts undcr:- "13.ln order to dpprecidte tlte scope of a rertieu, Section 114 CPC bas to be reatl, bii this section does not eaen adumbrate tbe ambit of interferetrce expected of tbe court since it n'tereb' states thdt it 'imay tnake sucb order tbereon as it tbinks fit". The paranreters are pt'es'cribed in Order 17 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, perntit 'tbc dcfendant to Press for a rebearinS "on accotott of sorne mistake ,, ,rro, appareitt on tbe face ol' tbe records or for dn! otber str.fficie trt ,iito,r". Tbc fonner part of tbe n e dedls u'ith a sitrration aiiribtttal,le to tl)e dpplicdnt, and the latter ttt a jrtral action abiclt is rrani.festlf incorrect or o 'i!hich trL'o conclt$iotts (tre not possiblc' .\'eitl:cr o]'tl-turt p0slttlcttc a rt'btaring o.l'tlte disptttc becattsc t1 ldrtl' i.t,rLl trot ltigt lighted dll tl:e ,tspt'cls ol'tht' ta:c or cottld ptrl'tps l.',rt't: rrrgttctl (btnt ntorc lbrcliiLt' ,rnLlt'rtr titcl l'irtdirts prec't'dutt: t() li;c t'otttt nrrd li:t'rc'lr) enjo1'cd ,r l',t'-'otrrt tlt' '''ct ilict "l'l.tis i: nntpl\ L'L'idcttt .front tlsc I:tpltrrtatirtn to Ilrt!t t ol Orler 17 i;:lticlt sr,rits tl-,ar rlte firct rbat tbe dacisirtn on t qrreslirttt of lta on obiclt rllc jutlsnterrt oJ' tbe col.l.t is based bas been r(''-'crsed or nodi.l'ietl b1' tbe srrb:eqrrott decision ol'(t silperilr cutrt in an)t otber cttse, sbdll not bc d grotrnd for tlte reoiea of nch judgtrtettt. Wl)ete the order irr rlr,testion is appealable the aggrietted party has adequate and efiicociorts remedl, and the court sbould excrcise tlte pouer to rclie,;t' its ordcr t'itb tl:e greatesl cirutntspec tiort. 7'his Cottrt in Thrmgabhadrtt Indrrstrics [,td, v, Got't, of ;1,P,1 held as foLlo;s: (SCR p. t85) "[l'Jbere is a distirtctiott u'bicb i: rcal, tl'.tor.tgl.t it tnight rrot tl-,;tt\': be ctpaltlc oJ c.tposition, betaccn a t crc (\'t ont'orts dcci:iort rtrrd ,r tlecisiott tltich corrld bc cbaracteriscd as titiated lrr, 't'rror dppdre t'. A reviea is b,- rro me(/ s (ot appcdl in disgtrise ultr:rcbt' dn erroneous decisiott is reheard atd correctccl, but lies ortll' Jitr pttte t error. ... where r;titltott any elaborate drgumeltt one corid point to tbe error and say bere is a subst(tnti.tl point of la'a whicb stctres one in tbe face, and tbere could reasonably be no two opinions entertained dboli it, a clear cdse of error dppttrent on the face of tbe record wotid be made out."

20.'Vhen the aforesaid principles are dpplied to tbc background facx of tbe present cdse, the position is clear that tbe Higb Cowrt bad clearly fallen in error in accepting the prayer for reaiew. First, the crucial question uhich according to the Higb Court was necess{lry to be adjr,tdicated was the question wbetber Title Suit No. 2a1 of 1985 (sic l of 1986) wasbarredby the proaisions of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, This question arose in Title Suit No. 1 of 1986 and uas irreletartt so fdr as Title Suit No.2 of 1987 is concerned. Additionally, tbe lTigl: Court erred in bolding tbat no pratcr for leate rnder Ordcr 2 liule 2 CPC .aas nmdc in tlse plairrt irt -I itlc Srrir r\b. 2Cl of 198t. Tbe claint of oral agrecrnent ddtcd t9-s.1982. is nentioncd in pdrd 7 of tltc plairtt, ard at tl:c atd ol'tl,e p;,rirtt it ltas bcctt noted tbdt ti;e ri.gl.tl to itrstittrtc ti:r: strit l)tr :ptti.tic per.fortnance u,rs r-r'.rct-r.'crl. T-lttt beitrg so, titt' Ih.gl.' C,tt:rt 1.,,t; erroneorrsly iteld ti',ortt ir$rac:tiorr of ()rder 2 Rrt/e 2 CI'(..'l'i,is:.;'ds not tt cdsc ultere ()rder 2[ tle 2 CPC ltas dtt)'dpplic(tti0n." In the albrcsrLid case, the r\pex Court hrrs hcld that rcheuring of rr cirsc can be done on account rlf some mistitlie or an error appllrent or-r tire ftrcc 0l' the record or for anv othcr suflicient rr:ason. In the present case, rhcrc is no efror apparent on the lace of the record and the Socien- III fact unclcr the guise of revielv is chalienging the order passed by this Court, rvhich is unde r revl e\\'. Similarly the Apex Court 1lt the case of State of !flest Bengal and Ors. r'. Kamal Sengupta and A:rr., rcportcd In (200S) 8 SCC 612 in paragraphs 27.,22 and 35 has held as under:- "21. At this stdge it is apposite to obseroe that uhere a reaieu is sought on the ground of discooery of new ma-tter or eaidence, sucb md"tter or ,ridrnu mwst be releaant and must be of such a cbaracter that if the same had been produced, it might baoe altered the judgment. In otbei uords, mere discoaery of neu or important matir or eaidence is not sfficient ground for reoieo ex rtebin justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking reoieu has also to sbow t'ltat sr.tch additional nntter or erLidence u)ds not witbin its knouledge and eaen after the exercise of &rc diligence, the sdme cotid ttot be produced before tlte coltrt earlier'

22.-t ltt lerm "ttistttkt' or cnor dppdr(' t" &r' its l'e|r cotltlokttiolt .rigarlics (ot (n-or "alticb is t'','idenl per sc.ii-rtnt tltt recttrd o.l'tbt ctse ,tltrl t!,.,r's ttot rtt,tirc tlttailctl t'tatrtirtalittrt' st rrtlrtil 'rrtd ()r !i)c ltg,rl p,.tsit io rt. I.l ,t tt trrot is rtol t, I i r t i t i , r t i r t r r titLer ol'tltc JirL.is sell-t:''itlt'nt atti tltlecliort tl:crct,t.l'tcrlrLirt's ktrtu tlt'l'ttlt atrd ptoctss o.l'rc,tsr.trtittg, it cdttttot bt' lrt'ttlt'tl ds ott ('rtot dpPnr('tt! tttt tl't: Jact' o.l' ti;c record fbr tl.te pttrpost t,f' Orrlar 17 Rrtlt I C P(- or Scctirtrr )2(.))0 oJ tite,lct..tct prtt it difl'crottll tttt or.lct or dt'ci:ir-srr or jtrd,gtrrrnt r-artnot bt'corrL'(ted ntcrcll'becarra it is erroneors in laa- 'u, i,t rl:e grornul tbat a difJererrt u-iet corld lsat:e bcetr taken l:t1' the cortrt/tribrmal on a point of fact or lau. In any case, al:ile exercising the power of reoieu, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal ooer its iudgment/decision.

35. The principles wbich can be culled out from tbe abovenoted judgments are: (i) The power of the Tribwnal to reoiew its order/decision under Section 22(3)(fl of tbe Act is akin/analogorts to the power of a ciail cortrt ttnder Section 114 read -^itb Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, (ii) 'I-be f t.ibmnl can reuiea its decision on eitber o.f tbe grottnds t,rrrtr tt t'ra lcd in Order 47 Rule t and not otl.teru'ise. tiiit 7l:c {'rf )..-(sirr/r "ttttl oti'tt strllitiutt t((t:ott ' .tPNL'(t).it1< /)t ()r,ltr -i' llllc I it,is to I'c ittlcrprt'tetl trt tl.'e lts/.'t oJ otl'o s1'ccr'/icri (, r1trli1-r ii'-') .\rr" e[rrt tii)iti] ii rtol se//',rl'i,it'rtl ,rrtd ; /.'rc,l: c'irr /', disco'.'crt:tl bt',t lt,ttg prot'c:: ol rt'asortitt3.,'attno! ltt' lt 'itlt'l tti 'tti et'ror .lPpt e)tt ort ll c litca rti rccord .irtsti.ff i/r,q e'vcrtli. ol ptt'';tr ttnde r Scction 22(.))(l). (a) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in tbe guise ol' exercise of power of reaiew. (oi) A decision/order cannot be reaiewed under Section 22(3)(fl on the basis of subsequent decision/jwdgment of a coordinate or larger Bench ofthe tribunal or ofa superior court. (oii) 'Vhile considering dn dpplicdtion for reoiew, the tribunal nutst confine its adjudication with reference to materidl ubich was auailable at the time of initial decision. The bappening of some subseqrcnt ctenl ot' developnent ctlnnot be tdken note of flr declaring thc irritial ordcr/decisiott as ,-itiatcd l'\' ,7rt crror dppdrcnt, (;:iii) ,\lere discolerl, o.f'ncu' or irnporttnt tttitttcr or e';idurt't is lrtt ylfficicnt grotrnd for rc'.:icr;'. I'bc party secking rettieu bas rrlso to sbou' that vtcl.t nrtllcr or (i.,id( cc 1;'tts t'to t r;'itltin its knt,i;'l,,lgt: tlnd c,cc a.ftcr tl.'c crcrcise of rlrc dili,gcncL', tbc sarnc cortki rrol ht prodrrced bcJrtrc t ltc corrt /lriltotdl ctrrlier." In thc lrforeseicl r-lisc, thc .'\pex (lotrrt has hclcl thlrt rt t'tristrll<c ttr rttt crror aPp:ltent otl tht: face o1'the recorcl I]1e itns :l trlist:rl<c or iln utror \\'l)i(:l) is printa-facie visible and does not require any detail exatnin:rtron. ln thc present case, the Societv has not been able to point out an\r error aPparent on the face of the record, on the contrary this Court has decided the case on mettts. The Apex Court again dealing rvith the scope of interfcrencc and limitation of revic*- in the case of Inderchanci Jain (dead) Tl-rrougl'r LRs v \'lotil:rl (de:rc1) ThroLrgh LRs, rel)orte(l in (2009) i4 SCC 663 in paragrapirs 7. 22,21,29,31 and 33 luts lrcl<l :rs rrnclcr:- 15 "7. Scction 114 of ttte Code of Ciril Procedrre (for sbort "the Cocle") l,rot'it!es J'or t itltstanti','e pou'er of rc;':ict;: bl'a citil cottrt ttttd 'r,,,tst'ttttt',1t11'bt'tbt tppt'lltrtt't'ttrrrls. Tl-'t'..;'ords "sttlt.it'ct trs rriitrcs,,rtt!" 0tc,;ri1Ni1 5r,ctio1 tt-l ril tht (.oLlt rttt',irt srrb.lt'ct ltt srrcl.t tlrtdtlirttts ttrtl lirrtitttiol s .tj ,r/./-l lrt' lrt,slribt'd tts ttllL'tt) itt3 itt .\titirttt ! l3 tl:t'rctt.l artl li;r tl;t' stit lttrl)oic, titt' pxtt't'titrrtrl (t)nLLttt0ni. t,tttt,tirtt'd irt Ortlt'r 17 o.l tl't Ottilt' rttttsl ltt' ttkcn ittto t,trtsitltr,ttirtrr. .\ccrir,ttt tt'l ttf' il:t Cotlt tltltotrglt lot's t'tt prL'scriL'c rrrtI litnitatiorr (.)tt tbe po:.r'cr of tbc corrl I'rtt vrcb lirrrittttion: bdt't' betn prouirlccl lbr in Order 17 of tbc Codc; lltrla t it'bcreof reads as t ut tl er: "17. The poLuer of d cirtil cortt to reiliel! its judgment'/decisiott is trdcedble in Sectiin 114 CPC, The grounds on u)bich reaielo cdn be sought are enumerdted in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, ubich reads as under: '1. Application for rettieut of judgment.-(1) Any person considering bimself aggrietted- (a) by a decree or order from uhich an appeal is allo@ed, bwt from wbich rto appeal bas been preferred' (b) b1' a clecrce or ortler li.ont t'bicb no appeal is alloucd, or (t) lr,, a tlccision on a re.ft'rt'nct'frotrt a Ootrrt o.[ Srrttll Oattscs, ttrd ;|lto, .li'orn Ibt' r/isco:t'r') tt.l ttt'; tt)t,l ittllotlnttt tttdl!cr ot' n'idt'tttc -;'lticl;, a.lit'r tlse etctcist'o.l'irrt'tliligott't" i;;'ts ttttt i;'ill itt Lis knotlt'lgt'or cottld nttl l't' proLlttt't'rl bt l)ittt irt tbe tirrrc ;'lscn tl-tt' tit'cra<' ';rrs pass.d or ortlcr ntdit, ot ott t1((oltttl r't.l'sotrtt' tttislakt' olbtr :rt.ff icie rtt (n' (rr()t dlpdl-ent otr lbe lttct: tt.f'titt' rccortl, rtr Jor 'rrtl , eusr,,. ,1,'vre,' lo obtnitt a rct'ie:'t' ttl tbe dt'cret' passcd rtr ortlcr trtaie tt'!t{i)trt bint' nn)1 dppb' lar n re''it'i;) of .julgncnt rtl tltt'crturt olticlt pdsst'Ll tltt decree or made tbe order.'

22. \Y/bcreas the appellant'defendant filed a reaiew application confined to the question tbat be uas entitled to tbe restitl'ttion of tbe priprrty and mesne profit in respect @bereof tbe learned Single 1r,i|, if the Higb Cowrt did not Pdss any specific order, tbe -applicaiion for reztiew filed by the respondent @as on tbe merit of tlhi judgment. The releoant grounds of reaiew uhicb haae been placed before ws relate to: 16 (i) Unconditional withdrawal of some dmount by one of tbe creditors of the defendant ds also the defendant himself. (ii) The defendant's application before tbe executing court tlsat be aas ready and willing to get the sale deed exeufied on receipt of dmoutlt itr casb and the said adntission allegedly wds not brorryl:t to tlte notice of the cotn't. (iii) \Vbile ltolling lltat tl;cre u'(ts no dgrcet cnt to redrr,:t'tbc salc cortsideratiort, tltc ITiglt Court bad ignored tbc J'act tbat it ;.;.;rrs rtrt adnittcd casc of tl.te partit's,.ts stipuldtcd in tltc contrtct, tltnt tbe tlcfendanls v'orrld gct tlte prcnrisc,s t,a<:ated .fi'ortr tbe tenants ;;itltirt tltree tnontl.ts. (i:') Tht tppe!lttrt l:ttl lr,tl't:l litr rtn dltr'rn,t!tt't'ralitl '.'i,:. ti;,t! i:t' ;;',ts, t cldt' lo 3(t li.)c tlct.rc'L l,.tr ;pctti.ti, Ttr,litnnrot'-c [)l ,.ottt),tL( l)\' paf irtg 1ls 1,/i,ijl, 'l'J:t cottrt did nol crtrtsidtr tl-,c c-'idotcl oi-l-)\\"s ! to 6 itt thcir propcr pttsp(cti.r(. (u) The court did not consider tltat tbe prlperty could not bc restored back to the appellant-defendant and as yrcb tbe court sbould baue exercised its discretionary jurisdiction.

24. An appeal is a continwation of tbe suit. Atty decision taken by tbe appellate co rt @ot d relate back, unless a contr.try intention is shown, to the date of institr,rtion of the suit. There cannot be any dowbt that tbe appellate court ubile exercising its appellate juisdiction uould be entitled to take into consideration tlse subsequent eoents for tbe purpose of moulding tbe'relief as enrisaged trnder Order 7 Rule 7 read uitb Order 41 Rule 33 o.f tbe Code of Ciail Procetlure. The sanrc sball, boweter, not nean tlsat tltc cortrt uot d procecd to tlo so in a re,tiea' applic,ttion dcspitt, bolding that tltc plaintilf iris n0t entitled to Srdnt ol t rlctrct fitr ;pe ci/ic pt,r.[ortrtattt:e of'co,ttt ttcl.

29. Order 1l Rrrlc I r,l ti.tc Oodc :tiptrlrrtt's tbtt lilini r,l 1111 ,11.1,s11i ,tt,ottld ttot .tut()tn! lt) (.urlotnJtic stal oi' tisc a.rci'uli()u ttf' iilt' rlt.rLt. 7 ha lau acknoulctl,qes tbtt luring peniertc't, o/' tltt' tppeal ir is ltossible .lbr tl.,c dccrte-boldcr to get tl:e dccree t:xc(:tttctl, I bt' cxccttlion of tbc dacrc,e during penduKlt o.f tb? appcal uotrltl, tbtts, be subject to tbe restitution of the property h tbe e,aent tbe appectl is allowed and the decree is set aside. Tbe cowrt onl! dt tbt time o.l' passing a jttdgment and decree reaersing tbat of tbe appellate court should take into consideration tbe subsequent eoents, but, b), no t- stretcb of imagination, can refuse to do so despite arriaing dt the findings that tbe plaintiff uould not be entitled to Srdnt of a deuee. 31. Contention of Mr Venugopal that tbe defendant hauing accepted noodtion of contract bwt only tbe quantum of tbe amount- beiig dffirent, the court cowld baue asked tbe respondent'plaintiff to dipoilt a furtber sum of Rs 24,000 cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Apart from the fact that such a contention bad rreoer been raised before the appellate colo't, keepi S irt aieo tbe .findittg of fact arriaed dt thdt there had in fact been no nouation of ',r,,,trit, :'rrch a cours, of action ads )tot ttpcn. ln au' t'iet' of tbe itntt(r, the sane u'orrld ditottn! to raappret'idtion ol'ctidt'nca iclticlr .;,rs l,t)oni tl:e rc''ictt' jrtri:dictiort o.l tbt' IIigl, Cotrtt. .l I 1r',,' lt;.q,, Ot,rrrt l"tii rt:4i.'tlr tto!ict',1 l'lrr' tt.it':l' ittttsliilirttt rtl i/,( ! /ri1r l, :. i,i.r, rs i\ i!tlict: " li.,c i,t:-; 0rt l,,.tC Strl,lCCt*t'-r.t'iCliC tri 110 ';.('1. t).1 /a:/( ';'. ./j lt'()l\tii!ntlc(l [1 tbt' Apt.t Oottt't ttntl .'il.tott\ rtti.'er I ligi.' ( 'ott) ls tttLt) i,t'strrrtrttarisr'd ts b erer nt icr: (i) Reuieu proceedings (lre not b1' aay oJ'appeaL antl hate to be strictly cont'ined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of reaieu may be exercised wben' some mistake or error 'appdrent on the fdct of record is fottnd. But error on tlse face of riiord must be swch dn error ubicb must strike one on mere looking dt tbe record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on tbe points ubere there may conceioably be two opinions. (iii) Pouer of reaiew may not be exercised on tbe ground tbat tbe decisiort i1:as erroneo s on neri ts. li'.') l)rt-;tr r.,.f rc';iti; c'rrrt irl:o l,c e:t'rcised lor arn strl.li<it:ttt r(ilta)t r.,/,ici-r ri ..;itle t,nattglt to irtclrttlc t tttiscrtrttclttirttr oi lact r.,r'it; ltl'a ,!)10.! t-)t c,etl illl al.rlttttc, /'-.) .ltt tiTplicttlion .l.rtr rci.'t('i- t)td1 l'c ttcct's:iltttccl bt' in'.ol;tn,q lbt' doctrint' iCltt\ (tit'irtc rtt'rttirtctn ,gl tt'-dl)i! " ii r I1' Irt orrr upirtiort. tltt' pritttiplt's ().1 li;' (ttitttt(t'ttt(i l't it, itr ll.'(' litcls r.,/ 11,ii r'rl-tr', i,;t'.'t' .;rrtttSlt' !teut tr|,?Iir:d.' t\ 1'hc Apcx Corir'( u'hilc rlcaling s ith thc scopc of rcvics' hrts he Iti rhrrt rc-apprc c i:rtiotr of cvitlcnt:c lttrtl rchcaritrg til' c:tsc s'ithtttr( tltcrc ltcittg .ir)\ effor ,rPParcr)t or) the f,rcc ol' tlte rccrtrrl is rrot permissil;ic III Iil,lrt ol provisions as containe(l I-l/s l14 and Order .17 Rulc I ol (,otic ol (-iril Procedure, 1908. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholc Mission, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464 inparagraphs 12 and 26 hrrs held as under :- "12. An error contemplated wnder tbe Rwle ,nust be sucb ubich is dppdrent on tbe fdce of tbe record and not dn error uhich has to be lisbed out and searched, In otber words, it must be an error of inad.uertence. It sbottld be something more tbdn d mere error (t d it mttst b? one abicb ntust be nmnifest on tbe face of tbe record. \Y/hen does an et'rcr cc{tse to bc mere error antl becomes an error dppdrcnl o tl.re .facc of tlte rccord depcntls ttpon the nmtcritls placed be.l'orc tltt cotn-t. If tbe uror is :o dlif)/trenl lbtt titbrtrrt litrllttt itt-.trli.<,titon t,l enquirl', o 11, one corrchtsion can ltc drittott in.fd','att ol litt'applictrrt. in srtcb cirunnst dn('{'s, tl:e rL''-'ict;.' ttill lie. ('rrdcr lltt,qut:t ol rt':-'it':,;, ll;e parlies arc ttol t'rt(illcd to rt'bcaritrg til'tl'c sttrttc i:srtt' l,itl trt.,( r.;s,.,t cttn l,e decidcd irtst ltt, l pentsal o.l'tlta ratords artd il it it ndnilast .nn l';c set rigllt b1' rclie;'irtg Ii.tc ordcr. \\:itls tltis backgrotrtttl, lt'l ls anahsc tltc inprtgncd jrtdgrnc'nt of the lligb Cortrt and find otrt u,bether it satisfies dny of the tcsts fornu atetl abote.

26. As beld earlier, if the jutlgrnent/order is aitiated by an dpparent error 0r it is a palpable urong and if tbe error is self-eaident, rcitieu is permissible and in tbis cdse the Higb Court bas rigl:tly applied the said principles as proaided under Order 47 Rwle 1 CPC. In oiew of the same, @e dre un(tble to dccept the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, on tbe otber band, we are in entire agreement u)itb the oieu expressed by tbe High Court." i9 Kcr,,itirrg i6 ricw the alirlt.srrirl jr.rtlgnrents, tlris (}rLrrt clrrcs ttol llrtcl anr' r.cilsol to scr asiclr thc cornnron olrler dlttetl 07.11.200S 1t:tssttl irl tlte revics' I)c tit i( )11s. 'l hr.: Socictr is lilirrg succcssivc petitions s'ith cotttlonrttior.t o1'clel'.rr ancl nothing prer,cnted it to approrrch the Hon'bic Strprcrnc Court against the initial order dated 0g.07.200'7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the action of the Sociery is a sheef abuse of the process of law and the present apPlications filed for condonation of delay in frling the set aside apPlications not only deserve to be clismissed but deserve to be dismissed with exemPlary costs. Rrstrltutrtlr', I.A.Nos.1 ancl 2 of 2009 in all thc \I'rit Appeals lIfC tlisrnissctl s'itlr r:osts ol' [ls.l ]:rliit irt t:tclt c:tsc arltl tlte sittut sllltil bc tlt nosilr'rl s itit tlre l'Lirrrc l\lirtistcr (lO\ ll)-19 Relit'l' I:trrltl u itlrirr ir ptriotl ol tltir.tr rl.rr s ll.r,1t l,rtlirr In clsc the Societl'firils to clcposit costs inlPosecl r"tpon Lrv tllis Cotrrt, the Collcctor, Hyderabad District, shzlll rccover thc sarne as arrears of land fe\rcnue and shail deposit the same with Prime Minister COVID-I9 Relief Fund rvith intimation to the Registrar General of this Court In case of failure on the part of the Society to palr the costs rvithin the albrcsaid period of thirtv davs, the Collector, Hvderabad District, shzrll conclr:rlc thc exercisc rvithin a pcrio(l of thirtv dar s thcrcatier. MEMORANDUM OF COSTS l.A.NOs. 1&2OF20 09 IN WA NO: 974 OF 2006 l.A.NOs. 1&2OF2 009 lN WA NO: 975 OF 2006 l.A.NOs. 1&2OF20 09 lN WA NO: 976 OF 2006 LA.Nos. 1&2OF2009 lN WA NO : 977 OF 2006 l.A.NOs. 1&2OF200 I lN WA NO: 978 OF 20 06 AND t.A .NOs. 1 & 2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 979 OF 2006 Rs Costs Quantified by Hon'ble Court (That the Petitioners herein are directed to pay costs of Rs,1,00.0001 (Rupees One Lakh Only) in each case and same shall be rleposited vrith the Prinre l',,i nister COVID- 'l I Relief Fund within 30 days fronr the date of Order (6 Cases x Rs '1 ,00 000 - each ) Ps TOTAL 6,0 0,0 00-00 //TRUE COPYI/ Sd/- K, SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR (. 1,.,, SECTION OFFICER The Registrar General, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad The District Collector, Hyderabad District, Hyderabad. The Presiding Officer, A.P. Cooperative Tribunal, Chandravihar Buildings,, Namoallv. H vd era bad. One bCio Sri V Narasimha Goud Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri Srinivas Polavarapu Advocate IOPUC] Two CCs to GP For Cooperation, High Court for the State of Telangana. touTl Two CD Copies One Spare Copy IN, To, 1 2 3 4 5 6

7. B. N4BC 2l HIGH COURT HCJ & AKS,J DATED: 22t0412022 t{E ST4 1 16 3 0s JUl'l 2O[ z a I S ',ATC COMMON ORDER l.A.NOs. 1 &zOF 2009 lN WA NO: 974 OF 2006 l.A.NOs. 1 &2 OF 2OOg tN WA NO:975 OF 2006 l.A.NOs. 1 &2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 976 OF 2006 l.A.NOs. 1 &2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 977 OF 2006 l.A.NOs. 1 &2 oF 2009 lN WA NO: 978 OF 2006 AND l.A.NOs. 1 &2 OF 2009 lN WA NO: 979 OF 2006 o D,SfuI'SS,NG THE IAS wtTH cosrs