The High Court · 2025

Mr. Pasari Shbahan, S/o P. Nannebhai, aged about 48 yrs' Occ Business R/o H.No. 8-3-2281678/'15 Sri Ram Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER/CLAIM PETITIONER AND

1. Mohammad Ghouse, S/o. late Shaik lmam, Aged 61 Years, Occ Advocate, Wo. *lZS. Madhuranagar Colony, Yousufguda' Hyderabad, Telangana State - 500045.

2. K. Balaiah, S/o. K. Raja Mallaiah, aged 75-Years, Occ. Service, R/o'19:1'!- - bblileo,-FhrG-ll, lndiapr"stha Tow-nship, Saidabad, Hyderabad - 500059' Telangana State.

3. Shaik Hateez, S/o Shaik Fareed aged about 54 years, Occ' Business Rl/o H.No.8-3-707l2/1, imamguda, Yellaraddyguda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTgDHR/JDR lA NO: { OF 2024 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 furthei lroceeding of E.P.No. 42 of 2O11 pending disposal of the main CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Aadesh Varma Counsel for the Respondent No. 1: Sri Mohammed Ghouse q The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOT'RABLE SRT JuSTICE SUJOY PAUL CTVIL REVISTON PETITIO N No.34 46 of2024 ORDER: With consent finally heard, Sri Aadesh Varma, learned coulsel for the petitioner ald Sri Mohammed Ghouse, r.espondent No. 1 /party-irr-person.

2. This petition filed under Article 222 of the Constitution assails the order dated 25. 10.2024 in Sr.No.3069 ol 2024 in E.P.No.42 of t2011 on the file of the VII Junior Civil Jrrdge, City Civil Court, H.yderabad, whereby the impugned application fiIed by the petitioner herein was rejectedlreturned.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner arrd respondent No.3 are the lawf,l owners anct peaceful possessors of lhouse propertSr municipal bearing No.g_3_ L6Z /B/4, on plot No.19 and 18 in Survey No.l2g/2 & l2g,/3, adrrLeasuring 212 Sq.Yds., or.equivalentto IZZ.25 sq.mtrs., situated at Jayanthi Nagar, Yousuflguda, Hyderabad. when the petitioner came to know about ttre E.p.No.42 of 2011, he hled application under Order XXI Rules 5g, 9Z to 99 and 1Ol read with SectiorL 4Z and. 151 of CPC. The said application was returned by way of impugned docket order dated 25.10.2024. Learned couLnsel for I / I &--. z SP, J cRP 3446 2024 the petitioner further submits that the application of the petitioner was returned for twin reasons. Firstlg, the application 1S ambiguous in nature and secondlg, E.A. cannot be registered as schedule properties are distinct and also as relief sought for is not maintainable.

4. Assailing the said frndings, it is submitted tl.at the schedule properties shown by the plaintiff and the present petitioner are overlapping and there exists confusion. The confusion about the properties can be clearly seen from the bailifl"s report. Thus, the Court committed error in not registering the said application and returning it on aforesaid twin reasons.

5. Respondent No.1/party-in-person, submitted that the application of the petitioner frled under.Order XXI Rules 58, 97 to 99 and 101 read with Section 47 and 151 of CPC is returned by assigning certain reasons. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of N.S.S.Ilarayana Sarma w Goldstone Enports (Pl Ltd.r, the impugned order becomes a decree and it cal only be called in question in a statutory appeal and not under Article 227 of the Constitution. ' 1zwz1 t soc aaz \ I / 3 SP, J t:RP 3446 2024

6. Faced with this, Iearned counsel fr:r the petitioner interestingly urged that the judgment cited supra is in the favour of the petitioner.

7. No other point is pressed by the parties.

8. Before dealing with the rival contentions, it is apposite to consider the relevant paragraph on which both the pzrrties relied upon, the same reads thus: " 19. Frorn the principles laid down in the clecisionsr noted above, the position is manifest that when €uly person claiming litle to the property in his possession obstructs the atte mpt by the decree-holder to dispossess him from the said propr:rt5r the executin5l court is competent to consider all questions raised by the persons offering obstruction against execution of the decree and pass appropriate order which under the prcvisions of Order 21 Rule 1O3 is to be treated as a decree." (Emphasis StLpplied) \ t 9 The orcler passed while deciding an application under Order XXI Rule loli is to be treated as decree as per the judgnent of the lY.S.S.Narayana Sarma (supra). In this view of the rnatter, ttre remedy of th,e petitioner is elsewhere and not under Arr-icle 227 of the Constitution. Merely, because the Court has not registered the applicati,tn which is a technical defect, will not nrake much difference because the Court has assigned the reasons for not 4 r-] SP, J cRP 3446 2024 entertaining the said application and the said reasons are relating to merits of the case. Thus, the impugned order can be treated as a decree which can be ca-lled in question ln an appeal. Accordingly, interference is declined.

10. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGIS RAR SE ON OFFICER To,

1. The Vll Junior Civil Judge City Civil Court at Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri Aadesh Varma, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Mohammed Gouse, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies I l : I HIGH COURT DATED: 0310112025 1gE STr,f E lY :f c o $ I ii,ii ?ifl v !l F ) ORDER CRP.No.3446 ot 2024 DISMISSING THE CRP b ZZ 7y',/<9 i