Le,arned counsel for the petitioners referring to the decisions vs Virgo f ndustries (Eng.) Private Limited vs. Venturetech

M/s- Ba.laji E-l'"rgy Prlvale Limited, Rep. By Sri. Narayana Reddy Director, l"yjng its.office at 5-9-19 1st floor, LaimiNarsinh Est-ate Secretdriat Roao, saira ba d Hvde ra bad - 50004''"' i HSJ|o:5Xfi i.,*"roondents/prai ntirrs Colonel D. Hari Das, S/o.G.D. Pittai, aged 66 years R/o.25A, AWHO, VedVihar Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad Mrs. Manjula Das, Wo. Colonel D Hari Das R/o.2SA, AWHO, VedVihar Tirumalgherry, Secunderabad g. M/s. Siemens India Pvt. Ltd, Having its Office at D.No. 5-9-19 LaxmiNarsinh Eiiate, Secretiirat noiO, HvoeraoSO, Telangana Rep. By Senior Relationship Manager Mr. Selvin

9. M/s. Prayag Enterprises P$. 1!9,Eqp-r By y Raghu Be'fq9Oy Director' il-JingldJ6mcJ"i o.trto. S-9-19 3rd'flooi, LaxmNarsinh Estate, Secretariat Coad,-liaifabad, Hyderabad-500004 Telangana State ( Respgndent Nos. 6 to 9 are not necessary parties to this Revision Petition ) ...RESPONDENTS/ Defendants 4 to 7 lA NO: 1 OF i2025 petitiorr 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 prr>ceedings'in O.S. No. 65 of 2025 on the file of Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, pending disposal of the Revision Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. MANJARI S. GANU Counsel forllhe Respondents: SRt GOVARDHAN VENU, Learned Counsel Representing M/s. NOMOS VISTAS THE LAWYERS The Court made the following ORDER: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CML REVISION PETITION No.3453 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER :,28.LL.2O25 Between: M/s. C.S. Bros & Co., (Cement Products) Pvt. Ltd. Office at 10-3-83/i, East Maredpally, Secunderabad - 500003, Telangana State Rep. by its Directors C. Suresh Pandit Rao and 2 others. ...Petitioners AND Vivek Rao Perka, S/o. Late Padma Rao Perka, and 4 others. ..Respondents OR ER: Heard Ms. Manjari S.Ganu, learned counsel for petitioners; and Mr. Govardhan Venu, learned counsel representing M/s.Nomos Vistas The Lawyers for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the XI Additional Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabed, in I.A.No.455 of 2025 in O.S.No.65 of 2025, decided on -

25.06.2025.

3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court dismissed the aforesaid I.A.No.455 of 2O25 filed by the petitioners under Order VII Rule 11 (d) read with Section 151 of the Civil procedure Code, 1908 (for short'CPC') seeking rejection of the plaint as the suit is barred b1, law.

4. The: brief facts of the case are that the respondents / plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 had filed O.S.No.65 of 2025 seeking partition of the parking slot in the suit schedule property bearing No.5-9-19, known as Laxmi Narsinh Estate located at Secretariat Road, Hyderabad, and the parties herein are disputing by each of them claiming to be theirs. The petitioners in the past have filed O.S.No.172B of 2Ot4 before the I Senior Civit Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, seeking perpetual injunction against the respondents. The respondents have also filed counter suit bearing O.S.No.1749 of 2019, before the I Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking an injunction against the defendants in the said suit. In both the suits, LAs. were filed by respective plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction, and both the I.As. stood - disposed of vide common order dated 13.02.2015 directing both the parties to park the vehicles in their respective shares of the property. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal i.e. C.M.A.No.76 of 2Ot6, before the III Addt. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad, wherein a temporary and ad-hoc arrangement was made vide order dated 30.08.2016 and finally the two suits filed by both the sides got dismissed for default.

5. Subsequently, another suit i.e. O.S.No.5347 of 2023 was filed by the petitioners before the V Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking an injunction simplicitor and an ex-parte interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.772 of 2023. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 07.O5.2024, against which the C.M.A.No.65 of 2O24 was preferred by the petitioners before the XI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, which also stood dismissed on 21.LO.2O24.

6. It is subsequently that the present O.S.No.65 of 2025 was filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 for partition in the parking slot of the suit schedule property. The petitioners filed I.A.No.455 of 2025 praying the Trial Court to reject the plaint holding it to be \.. .: (' - barred b,y limitation. It is this I.A. which got dismissed by the Trial Court leading to filing of the instant Civil Revision Petition.

7. Le,arned counsel for the petitioners referring to the decisions of the Hcn'ble Supreme Court in Raghwendra Sharan Singh vs. Ram Prasanna Singh (Dead) by Legal Respresentativesl; Virgo f ndustries (Eng.) Private Limited vs. Venturetech Solutions Private Limited2, and Nikhila Divyang Mehta & Anr. vs. Hite:sh P. Sanghvi & Ors.3, contended that the findings given by the -trial Court while dismissing the I.A.No.455 of 2025 were erroneous and contrary to the settled position of law.

8. Ac<:ording to the learned counsel for the petitioners, from a bare perusal of the pleadings and materials available on record it is evidently clear that the plaintiffs were aware of the cause of action way back in the year 2OL4 itself when the earlier suit preferred by both the sides was filed and the respective stand taken on either side in their respective suits. Therefore, it at all, if the suit ought to had been filed it must have been filed within 3 years and having t (ZOZO) 16 Supreme Court Cases 601 ' (ZOIS) 1 Supreme Court Cases 625 t s.L.P. (C) No.13a59 ot 2024, decided on 15.04.2025 not done so and filing the present suit after 11 years clearly amounts to the suit being barred by limitation.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.l to 5 submitted that the instant suit filed by the respondents / plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 is one which is for partition, and as such, in a suit for partition the question of it being barred by limitation does not arise. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 further submitted that the cause of action in each of the cases were entirely different which again would not come in the way of the plaintiffs in pursuing the instant suit for partition, nor could it be reiected as barred by limitation.

10. According to the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5 the contents of the plaint itself are sufficient to establish the cause of action, and the period of limitation, and as such the Trial Court has rightly refused to reject the plaint holding it to be barred by lim itation.

11. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of records, plain reading of the impugned order itself would go to show that the Trial Court has not foreclosed the objections raised t)y the petitioners, but has only held that the objections raised by the petitioners are more disputed questions of fact and for deciding the same evidence would be required and therefore it could nct have been allowed without appreciating the evidence. t2. Orr closer scrutiny of the impugned order, it would clearly reflect trat in fact the Trial Court has taken note of the specific denial of the so-called amendment agreement dated 01.04.2001 by the plaintiffs. Furthe1 taking note of the fact that present is the suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs, whereas all other suits which were earlier filed were under entirely different contextual backdrop and for entirely different reliefs, therefore, those cannot be used detrimental to the interests of the respondents / plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 so far as objection of Order II Rule 2 is concerned. Moreover, this very issue of the suit being barred by limitation itself can be decided ,rfter framing of the issue on the basis of evidence which would be adduced by either side and thereafter a decision would be taken by the Trial Court.

13. So far the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, there can be no quarrel so far as the principles of law laid down in those judgments. But looking into the impugned PageT of 7 order and also considering the nature of relief sought for by the plaintiffs, this court is of the considered view that those judgments would not be applicable to the facts of the present case or at least would not had been applicable while deciding the same at this juncture without recording of evidence. In view of the same, this court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioners calling for an interference to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. 14: The, civil' Revision petition thus being devoid of merit deserves to be and is accordingty dismissed. Nonetheless, the objections raised by the petitioners may, if pressed upon by the petitioners, be framed as issues and the issue of limitation be decided before venturing to decide the other issues so framed after recording of the evidence of both the parties.

15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. SD/. D ABDULLA KHAN REGIS //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Xl Additionat Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. One CC to Ms. MANJARI S GANU Advocate tOpUCI 3. one cc to sRt. NoMos vtsrAs THE LA\ ryERS, Advocate [opUC] 4. Two CD Copies {@ kul/PSL d HIGH COU]RT DATED:28l11tll}s ORDER CRP.No.34S3 of 2025 THE s C) i-) * n 5 I I 2il1$ F * DISMISSING |IIE CIVIL REVISION PETITION Ws tofzlze